| Revision as of 08:03, 10 September 2008 edit217.36.107.9 (talk) →A4232 road← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:45, 19 November 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 8 discussion(s) to User talk:Ian13/Archive13) (bot | ||
| (217 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| {{hidden|Archives| | {{hidden|Archives| | ||
| {{Archives|bot=MiszaBot III|age=3|large=yes|<div style{{=}}"text-align:left;"> | |||
| * ] <small>(''31 October 2005 - 23 December 2005'')</small> | * ] <small>(''31 October 2005 - 23 December 2005'')</small> | ||
| * ] <small>(''23 December 2005 - 31 December 2005'')</small> | * ] <small>(''23 December 2005 - 31 December 2005'')</small> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
| * ] <small>(''22 July 2006 - 1 November 2006'')</small> | * ] <small>(''22 July 2006 - 1 November 2006'')</small> | ||
| * ] <small>(''29 November 2006 - 22 June 2008'')</small> | * ] <small>(''29 November 2006 - 22 June 2008'')</small> | ||
| <hr> | <hr /> | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| {{Autoarchivingnotice|bot=MiszaBot III|age=3}} | |||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ]</div> | ||
| ⚫ | }}}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 40K | |maxarchivesize = 40K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 13 | ||
| |algo = old(72h) | |algo = old(72h) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Ian13/Archive%(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Ian13/Archive%(counter)d | ||
| ⚫ | }} | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Notice of request for deletion of editor {{BASEPAGENAME}} :) == | |||
| ] {{BASEPAGENAME}}, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your ] are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish ]); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (''actually it will''). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). — ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Words fail me. ]] 13:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reverted B roads== | |||
| Hello Ian13 | |||
| As an administrator with an interest in the UK roads project, can you please see what you can do about the Articles ], ] and ]. An editor using only an IP address seems intent on reverting these pages back to ] and then he/she has, in the past, places warning templates on my talk page. I have left notability notes on Article talk page but these seem not to be enough for this editor to leave these pages to stand alone. These actions seem to be rather disruptive and seem to go against constructive contributions made to improve road information on Misplaced Pages. Please let me know if you think that these pages are not worth keeping and I will no longer try to contribute to them and they can be assigned to the electronic paper basket. Your opinion will be very much appreciated.<small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> | |||
| :I should answer some points here. There is a clear consensus that the subjects at hand are not notable, and therefore not worthy of their own entries. There seems to be no indication from ] on there being multiple, independent, reliable sources to support their claim to the contrary. The user then made comments on talk pages and in edit summaries that slighted other contributors, and was reminded that our policy was to ]. They ignored this and made further comments as to the character of other contributors, including accusing participants at ] of "road snobbery". I made an attempt to point out to the user that their actions were bordering on disruption, at which point they decided to remove all doubt by ranting about the attitudes of other contributors on ''three'' talk pages, including copying and pasting entire sections of policy pages into discussions. I also note the personal comments above. I hope this clears up why the user was warned for disruption. ] (]) 10:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have been keeping an eye on this dispute since another user warned me of it (above). The clear consensus you speak of seems more opaque: there seems to be users on both side of the debate. Redirecting to a non-equivalent page is similar to deleting it, and thus seems like the sort of action which requires debate - but on a talk page, not through reverts. At ], some discussion has occurred and issues raised have not been addressed. It seems reasonable to me that the page content should remain in its former state until decided otherwise. With regards to references, the pages have 1, 3 and 1 references (respectively), and any bias claims could be resolved in ways other than effectively removing all the content. The copying and pasting of content to multiple discussions, whilst not necessarily wholly called for, they were all places where the discussion was occurring, so ] certainly doesn't make me think it was disruptive. User talk page templates are designed for cases where disruption is clear, otherwise a friendly note is usually more appropriate. I can't spot these attacks you speak of, but I am happy to comment if you link me to the appropriate page diff. There isn't much more to say about this debate, but I can only advice you both (although this likely applies more to ] given previous edits) to make use of the article talk pages, and assume good faith. ]] 12:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for your quick response to my communication. I note all your comments and would be more than pleased to enter into a debate about these pages. I had tried in the past to put my point of view across to the editor, but the user in question seems to think that I had been to strong in my criticism of his actions and tagged my talk page accordingly. I can only apologies to the editor if he felt I was not treating his actions in good faith, but he/she has failed to join into any constructive debate other than to say that the comments I had placed on the pages talk page were, in his/her opinion not valid, with no suggestion of what he/she thought would make these pages notable. In any case reverting the pages because he/she had decided for themselves that the article content was not notable is, as has been mentioned in other debates a form of deletion without consensus. I certainly regret getting into a reversion war with this editor as it is really a waste of both our times..<small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> | |||
| ::::Good. (As an aside, is there a reason your signature lacks a timestrap? <nowiki>~~~ gives the signature, ~~~~ signature and time, ~~~~~ time.</nowiki>) ]] 13:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As I have made clear, I shall stop reverting the page when ] and accomplices stop recreating them. The situation is clear - we need multiple, independent, reliable sources that demonstrate the route's notability. It's mere presence on a map does not. In any case, use of a map as a source would constitute ], since it involves joining the dots. I am bemused as to how you have some to the strange conclusion that I am causing the disruption here. If you need evidence of the contrary, . ] (]) 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Calling someone 'Mr Anonymous' is indeed inappropriate in that case. However, people can get a little annoyed when they find their page is repeatedly reverted and the user doesn't discuss on the talk page. Your posting of a POINT message when in a dispute with that user can be seen as inappropriate, or even making a POINT yourself. This clearly is not a clear-cut content removal, because people are objecting. My recommendation to you would, if you can't reach a compromise, be to take the article to AfD (quite commonly, these end with the decision of ''redirect''). , if a little offhand, at least the user is trying to address why he thinks the deletion should stop. ( seems inappropriate to the discussion.) However, saying you will stop reverting when your page version is preserved is unconstructive: this isn't about succeeding, it is about improving the encyclopedia, and in disputes, the original version generally holds until discussion deems otherwise - otherwise, your editing is disruptive. ]] 15:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Precisely how is flat out branding people as "completly unresonable and is disruptive", making ], and accusing editors in good standing of "suffer from some sort of Road snobbery" acceptable behaviour? ] has neither apologised, nor given any hint that they would refrain from such in future. Most importantly of all, '''redirection is not deletion.''' This discussion cannot continue until you accept this fact. I cannot be constantly reminding administrators of things that they should already know. ] (]) 16:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::To a reader, redirection ''is'' effectively the same as deletion given the loss of content observed: both actions are reversible, and prevent (in passing) reading of pre-existing content. ]] 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Is the assumption that I am supposed to have accomplices? Made by ] in his comments above, an example of what he calls a personnel attack. I have no accomplices and unless the user has any evidence to the contrary I would hope he/she would withdraw this accusation] (]) 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Alisha Pillay == | |||
| Hello again Ian13 | |||
| Hey Ian, | |||
| I would like to point you again, in the direction of ] who seems to be engaging in another edit war concerning the article ]. I know this may seem like telling tales but I think these editorial confrontations are getting to be a bit more than coincidences.<small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Just wanted to ask you about a wiki page that was deleted about 2 years ago. The page was about an artist from Canada titled "Alisha Pillay". I would love to see this page on Misplaced Pages again. Her debut single "Convicted" hit Canadian radio in January 2010 and she managed to reach #38 on the Canadian Top 40 charts. She won the opportunity to have her song on Canadian radio through a competition called "Radio Active" which was thrown by Pitbull Promotions. The song was received well and managed to win over Sony Music Canada, who continued to market and promote the song. She was also featured as an emerging artist on the Billboard Canadian Update and won the "Chum Emerging Artist" award for April 2010. | |||
| :Blocked for 24 hours for breach of ]. Thanks, ]] 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| She has collaborated with many established writers including: Alisha M'Jestie Brooks (Rihanna, Pon De Replay), James Fauntleroy (Chris Brown, Beyonce, Rihanna, Justin Timberlake and many others), Jarvis Church of the Philosopher Kings (Nelly Furtado) and many others. She has also performed with the Canada's most acclaimed producer, David Foster. She was the winner of his first singing competition in BC called "Opportunity of a lifetime" | |||
| ::Hi Ian13, | |||
| She is going to release her second single "Love Drunk" in Canada on July 12, 2010. | |||
| ::] appears to be at it again. I feel like we are in the same situation as before this user was blocked. I have not reverted the users edit as I have better things to do than keep reverting this users vandalism all the time. The user has put ''no'' summary to the edit or replied to on ]. I'll just leave it to you. ] (]) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your time! Would love to see this page back on Wiki with all the new updates! | |||
| :::Warned again. ]] 18:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| -- <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| ::::Please stop inserting redundant and duplicated information into this article. Thanks, ] (]) 08:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''This was submitted to an archive page, and subsequently not noticed.'' | |||
| ==Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at ]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->] (]) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== | |||
| Hi, not only was this an article on a book, and thus not eligible for A7, it was also a ''notable'' book that I was in the process of fixing the article up for. Request that you restore it so that I can continue expanding the article. ] <sup>(])</sup> 10:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC). | |||
| ] | |||
| :My bad. Obviously working away too vigorously here. Cheers, ]] 10:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at ]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->] (]) 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::No worries, we all make mistakes. Plus, your speedy clearing of the speedy backlog means I can do some article building instead of janitorial work =). ] <sup>(])</sup> 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC). | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == OLD TIMES == | |||
| The ''Sarah Palin wheel war'' arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open. | |||
| *Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at ]. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible. | |||
| *Your contributions are also welcome at ]. | |||
| We had some fun, didn't we Ian? Shame that it looks like you gave up on the Misplaced Pages. You loved it so. ] (]) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | ||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Ian13. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| Is there any way to speed up the process and move ], or do I need to wait a week? --] 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The page was created (almost 3 years ago!) as a copyvio, and has gone largely unchanged, so was valid for immediate deletion under CSD G12. However, I held off, and instead posted a full copyvio notice to encourage its recreation. Given this has happened, I am more than happy to go ahead and move it. I must say, excellent work. You have made a useful article from nothing in a very short time. | |||
| :While I'm talking to you, your ] page concerns me. It appears to be public domain, which is fine, however sometimes, copyright can be claimed from the transcription. I'm no expert in this field, but if you didn't type it up from the book, or a faithful image of the page, I think it may need to be deleted. | |||
| :Cheers, ]] 18:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not a direct copy-paste from the transcription; where possible I used the page images, and otherwise I corrected OCR errors. The text is as it was published by the ICC. --] 18:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's cool. Just wanted to make sure. Good work :) ]] 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == Nek == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for ''In Due'' cover.<br>] (]) 10:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| :No problem, ]] 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/05&oldid=813459745 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 04:45, 19 November 2022
|
| ||||||
Alisha Pillay
Hey Ian,
Just wanted to ask you about a wiki page that was deleted about 2 years ago. The page was about an artist from Canada titled "Alisha Pillay". I would love to see this page on Misplaced Pages again. Her debut single "Convicted" hit Canadian radio in January 2010 and she managed to reach #38 on the Canadian Top 40 charts. She won the opportunity to have her song on Canadian radio through a competition called "Radio Active" which was thrown by Pitbull Promotions. The song was received well and managed to win over Sony Music Canada, who continued to market and promote the song. She was also featured as an emerging artist on the Billboard Canadian Update and won the "Chum Emerging Artist" award for April 2010.
She has collaborated with many established writers including: Alisha M'Jestie Brooks (Rihanna, Pon De Replay), James Fauntleroy (Chris Brown, Beyonce, Rihanna, Justin Timberlake and many others), Jarvis Church of the Philosopher Kings (Nelly Furtado) and many others. She has also performed with the Canada's most acclaimed producer, David Foster. She was the winner of his first singing competition in BC called "Opportunity of a lifetime"
She is going to release her second single "Love Drunk" in Canada on July 12, 2010.
Thanks for your time! Would love to see this page back on Wiki with all the new updates!
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.218.254 (talk • contribs) This was submitted to an archive page, and subsequently not noticed.
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
OLD TIMES
We had some fun, didn't we Ian? Shame that it looks like you gave up on the Misplaced Pages. You loved it so. The Vestiges of Cicero Dog (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Ian13. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)