Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:50, 19 February 2008

Untitled

I looked at the reason and it stated SPAM. I just pulled up C.F. Martin & Company and will follow their format.19:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)~

IRC

Hey there! Just wondering if it would be within your power to grant a user the power to grant others voice. Specifically, I was wondering if I could be able to hand it out, as I'm in there quite frequently (IRC nick is Mopper). Thanks for listening, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean in #wikipedia-en-help? Yes I can do that, but we don't need any more people with access to that function at the moment. John Reaves 14:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sounds good. Thanks! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit of refactoring

I don't know you from Adam, but the remarks you left on the noticeboard set a bad example for other editors, so I removed them. Feel free to restore what you want to say in civil terms. That will be more effective, probably. Cheers, Jehochman 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Constanta Sharks

why was my page deleted? I know it wasn't very pretty but i was working on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Word (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rodckit guitars

John, I was creating a page that told about our guitar. I don't understand why it was pulled or where it looked like advertising??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Rod MacKenzie (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

deletion reason script

I have installed this script into MediaWiki:Sysop.js; having this script in your personal monobook.js is no longer necessary. —Random832 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure wht I did wrong. It wasn't meant as spam. I have printed a copy of C.F Martin & Company WIKI and will follow that format. Do I start over with a new page or edit the one I started?19:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Rod MacKenzie (talk • contribs)

Angel Falls

Thanks for deeming it stub worthy.

Now if you could just do the same for the game series template scatman839 (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's up again for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatman839 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrews Robichaud article entry

Hi John, you deleted my article. What makes one commercial entity notable and another not? I have seen more than a few commercial enterprises on Misplaced Pages. I was in the process of adding impartial references to support the information (which was neutral and fact-based), but before I had the chance you had removed the article. Is there a more appropriate place for this type of information? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvinkardon (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Notability, companies need to be notable for something for inclusion, not just exist, we aren't a directory. As far as somewhere else for it, Wikia might have a wiki for it. John Reaves 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Post on action taken by Prodego

Hi John, I noticed that you posted this recently, and I would like to know whether you are referring to one of the two other users who posted there or to the now departed editor whose account was blocked? EdChem (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you masking user names/using the third person? And I was referring to Adam C. John Reaves 08:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am masking names because the editor to whom you refer does not want his real name appearing and discoverable by means such as googling. ArbCom have allowed a name changed and endorsed this name removal. I ask that you remove the name and replace it with some non-identifiable expression - such as the departed user. As for the comment you made, I realise that there has been disruption associated with this whole matter, but believe that you are being unfair. Unless you are aware of the off-wiki situation you have incomplete information. I ask that you make no further reference to the name and let the matter drop. Thank you. Best, EdChem (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki situations are of no concern to me. There's no reason to mask anything here, there is no context. I have no intention off letting "the matter" drop (assuming the "matter" is my support of Prodego?). John Reaves 08:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's your choice whether or not to take account of off-wiki situations in making a judgement about someone. I would try to avoid making a judgement if I knew for sure that there was other information to which I was not privy; how you behave is up to you. As for the matter, I am not referring to your support of Prodego - you are (of course) welcome to form any view of his action that you see fit. I am referring to what I see as the unfair characterisation in the diff to which I referred above, and broader discussion of the editor in question. He has gone. Please, remove the name and allow him to go with dignity. EdChem (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's unfair, he's been dragging this out and creating the drama that exists. Any dignity that was left was lost when he created this whole mess. John Reaves 09:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We're probably better off agreeing to disagree on the case itself. Thank you for making an alteration to your use of the name. EdChem (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

I'm trying to get to Talk:Ababdeh people deleted per Speedy_delete#Redirects. Your message was too cryptic, but I figured I just needed to add the redirect then tag it. Why exactly are you reverting it? — Zerida 19:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no good reason to delete it as long as it's main space counterpart is serving as a redirect. John Reaves 21:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, there is or it wouldn't be a speedy deletion candidate per policy and it wouldn't explain why nearly every Talk: page move I've made before the last few weeks have been deleted. And these were not deleted because I tagged them--it's how I found out they were speedy deletion candidates. — Zerida 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What possible reason is there for it to be deleted? John Reaves 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:CheckIntentPlease

While it is always wise to be suspicious of single purpose accounts, their use is not forbidden. CheckIntentPlease's statements on RFA turn out to be correct, and Snocrates may well face a block.

See also User talk:CheckIntentPlease, and Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Snocrates.

As CheckIntentPlease's edits have been proven to be non-trolling, there is no other documented practice that states that the account should be blocked.

Please unblock the account, and make sure to remove the autoblocker too, so that any eventual main account of this user is able to edit once more.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to unblock now that the RfA is over, but I'll leave a note on his talk and see if he's even interested in being unblocked still. John Reaves 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked mainly to ensure that the main account does not get caught in any autoblocks. Jehochman 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I would do if I were you, John Reaves. I would apologise in the humblest of terms. It is easy to beat and kick User:CheckIntentPlease. However, his courage to stand up uncovered bad behavior by a potential administrator. Consider saying sorry and bestow upon him an award. Archtransit (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I just did so with another user (not CheckIntentPlease). Archtransit (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wondering what happened to an essay

Why did you delete Misplaced Pages:Stop whining already? -- Kendrick7 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

People whined about it. John Reaves 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, was there an MfD? -- Kendrick7 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I wrote it. John Reaves 23:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oooh. Well I found it useful on rare occasions. I guess that's ok though. -- Kendrick7 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: rollback

I had incorrectly identified that as vandalism and later corrected myself. It's easy to do in articles that are changing so quickly. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Sinister Caltrop

Really there is nothing ridiculous or sinister about my actions. I am a longstanding admin and member since NuPedia who garbled up my "inbox" -- and I had the help of other admins too. Look at it this way, I spend my time fighting vandalism, making useful edits, starting obscure articles, and avoiding controversy (usually). I know nothing of Prodego. I admit I do not like the archive talk consensus policy, but when it was brought to my attention a year (?) ago, I tried to bring back my deletions. I ended up with a dog's breakfast of a mess. Then out of the blue Prodego brings up the issue again. Fine. I can't fix it. But ridiculous? Sinister? Nothing of the sort. Check my contributions. I am not a Wikipedian politician or bureaucrat. Just a (usually) friendly editor. Caltrop (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How you helped with William Browning article

Please indicate how you fixed the article so I won't have to ask for help doing same next time. Thanks FGR (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want. John Reaves 20:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete of Brian Telestai

Hi John, I tagged Brian Telestai as a candidate for speedy deletion because there was no notability (to me) in the article except for references to his band. I'm not arguing, it is your call as admin, I just wanted to let you know why I tagged it. Cheers ~kevin _email 22:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hi, John. I note that you blocked 97.88.222.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 55 h for disruption, and that you acted 12 h after the expiry of a 31 h blcok for harassment by Master of Puppets. Since the block, the user is continuing to make highly offensive comments. Apparently the user is unconcerned about the block - note the edit summary in this case. S/he has also made further offensive and homophobic comments. This prejudice is claimed to be biblically expired. Might I suggest that a lengthening of the block might be justified, and also a semi-protection of the talk page. It is evident that the user does not want to request an unblock, and semi-protection would prevent the making of further oiffensive comments. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, extended to a week and protected. John Reaves 04:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from me, as well. Aleta (Sing) 04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Downtrip

Would you like to comment here about why you blocked/unblocked him? After that block, he was blocked for edit warring and then I blocked him. He keeps getting associated with Wikzilla and his crowd, so I'm not convinced he's innocent. The guy he's trying to file a CU on has a clean block log. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand...

Why you ask me this.

David has already said, himself, that he has left: . I'd say he's put it in pretty uncertain terms.

If he comes back, he's welcome. If not, that happens sometimes. People, their priorities, their attitudes—all those can change. The project and its community evolve, too. Sometimes individual editors and the project will grow apart. Sometimes they come back together. David's the only one who can make the call on whether or not he feels he has a place here now or in the future.

I don't see how you get 'I think he should leave' out of the comment I made. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realized he'd actually left. John Reaves 17:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Avanti Construction

Hi John

Thank you very much for your follow-up on the Avanti - Construction entry. I have found out today that you have deleted it due to lack of significance. In the history page, I tried to explain why the Avanti project was relevant:

The purpose of this entry is to show that research has shown that many problems are caused by poor or missing production information. Effective communication of high quality production information between designers and constructors is essential for the satisfactory realisation of construction projects. The evidence shows that improvements in the quality of production information reduce the incidence of site quality problems and lead to significant savings in the cost of construction work. I think this entry's notability is therefore justified, insofar as Avanti was a project supported by the UK Government (via DTI) whose aim was to demonstrate how the costs in construction could be reduced by addressing the production information from the very first moment in an accurate and meticulous manner.

I have also rewritten it in a non-advertisement style, from a neutral point of view.

There are plenty of links to other sources and articles.

I have therefore taken out the template of issues, i.e.

I hope the above is OK.

Many thanks.

Machiavelli2008

I still think that the entry is relevant for the above reason.

John, many projects in the construction industry become a nightmare because at the very early stages, specifications are made in a wrong way. And little faults at the beginning end up being a chaos at the end. Avanti proved this through case studies.

I would be grateful if you could consider my explanations and allow me to leave the entry.

Thanking you in advance

Machiavelli2008 --Machiavelli2008 (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear mr. Reaves,

I noticed that you are responsible for deleting my contribution about ETDE. Why? ETDE is not a commercial product and I have used logos that are owned by ETDE (www.etde.org) and I contribute to the database of this organization that is freely available in many countries all over the world.

Hillebrand Verkroost Netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.112.1.3 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They're both still not notable. John Reaves 14:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I AM!

Before

I AM REMOVING IT! IT DONT TAKE FOUR OF YOU FOR GOD SAKES! Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How do I go about doing that? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

What are they? And if I do can you tell your mates we have come to this agreement too so I'm not hassled? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

And the same could be done with the Custodian Helmet I presume? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And why does SineBot sign my text when I have a signature? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

So could it be done with the helmet too? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

After

I AM REMOVING IT! IT DONT TAKE FOUR OF YOU FOR GOD SAKES! Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How do I go about doing that? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

What are they? And if I do can you tell your mates we have come to this agreement too so I'm not hassled? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

And the same could be done with the Custodian Helmet I presume? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And why does SineBot sign my text when I have a signature? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

So could it be done with the helmet too? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

This will suffice? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)