Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:46, 18 September 2007

Due to circumstances beyond my immediate control, I will not be editing as frequently as I would like to. I will return soon, as soon as I can. I will attempt to check talk page messages daily.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Archives /Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive 3

Contact Me

Please feel free to leave me a message on this talk page. This is the quickest way. I check my talk more often then my email.

Email me if you want to share something sensitive. Or do not wish to use the talk page. But consider using the talk page if possible.

The Navou on Freenode IRC is me, however, I am not monitoring this nick for most of the time. It is a bot designed to parse vandalism, new accounts, and unblock requests to a program I am creating. The bot is designed to ignore anything else in its bot mode.

References

RFCN

Thanks for helping. However, would you mind closing the discussion when you block? Otherwise, the discussion will continue without point. Congratulations on your successful RfA, btw. i  01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I forgot to check. And thank you.  :> Navou 03:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

OK by me, I thought the editing was out of character for that user. Thanks for letting me know! - Philippe | Talk 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please restore my subpage

You've deleted a user subpage of mine without adequate notice and the reason stated doesn't fit. Creating a page to accurately summarize commentary in prep (as was repeatedly stated) for an attempt at mediation/arbitration is explicitly permitted by the guidelines. Please restore it. TMLutas 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for writing. I've deleted this subpage without notice because it met criteria. I did let you know when I deleted however. Also, there is a thread on AN/I located here. Regards, Navou 04:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Navou, You are just delaying the inevitable. The data lives and u can't get to it. Please review WP:DICK --Britcom 04:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've pointed to the thread located at AN/I in the comment above yours. I'm not sure why you want me to review WP:DICK. I don't think its applicable here. Thanks again, Navou 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:TMLutas/WMC. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Thanks for admitting so forthrightly that you didn't provide any notice whatsoever. I look forward to hearing from you any reasonable construction on how one is to apply WP:USER and its exception to the rule on attack pages so future efforts will not get deleted. Since what I'm alleging was a pattern of conduct and I thought it unfair at the time to dredge up all the old issues with WMC it's likely to be an interesting discussion. Would it have been more appropriate to go through all his old troubles and assemble the pattern charge from that in order to avoid creating a page that lists the evidence as a sort of prosecutor's brief? I await your answer with interest. TMLutas 13:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne unblock reviewed

Hello, I have reviewed an unblock template at User talk:Pastorwayne. Regards, Navou 19:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I restored his statement/request for transparency, and moved his general discussions down in the hope that he can/will leave the past behind.

That said, please keep an eye on the talk page. While I may hope for the best, the worst is still "possible", of course...

Anyway, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot: Watch out for sock usage, as well... - jc37 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have left my comment at User talk:Pastorwayne#Unblocking_request, and as you will see I disagree with the unblock. May I ask you to reconsider? It seems to me to set a very bad precedent to unblock someone who has spent the last few weeks using sockpuppets to evade the block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew of some, but was unaware of all of those in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Pastorwayne. If he uses even a single sock to circumvent his "statement", I'll reblock him personally. - jc37 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Jc37 was unaware of CAT:socksofpastorwayne. And I should have checked deeper. I thought User:OfficePuter was the only incarnation, and could be construed as "the office computer". However, BrownHairedGirl, if you re block, I will not consider it wheel waring, as I assume you have more information than I do having done the research yourself. You are welcome to reblock if you are so inclined. Navou 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

With your support, that's three admins. I went ahead and reapplied the block. I'll note it there. - jc37 20:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied

Here. -Jéské 04:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused

Thanks for your consideration at Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal but I'm a bit confused regarding this. Criteria 7 specifically entitles me as the sole author to request its deletion in good faith. "7. Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." The page is too long and I currently don't feel inclined to prune it. Quite what my move to citizendium has to do with it I have no idea, I'm likely to be in both places for a while and may well return to wikipedia if things pan out there. I am significantly less likely to return if, for some reason, admins chose to make an exception to policy with regards to my contributions here. Would you mind explaining a bit more fully? --Joopercoopers 08:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)