Misplaced Pages

Sorry

Listen, I'm sorry for the hastle I caused you. I've probably been under a great deal more wikistress than I realised. I was out of order as well. Sorry for my little outburst. I'm still leaving editing for a while, to get my head together for a bit. Thanks for the nice note on my talk page. Alun 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Help

I see you have reverted the vandalism to my page, thank you. But I have been under attack by this guy all day and its kind of scaring me. I know that Lawl Vandal, Megalomanick, and Woot Hoot the Owl are all the same user and their only edits have been to harrass me mercilessly with untrue statements about my sexuality. Please, is there any way to block them from making more sockpuppets or find out who it is? Darthgriz 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kamope's Valentines greetings

Hey, I noticed you reverted Kamope's edit to provide a lovely gift to Chacor because, technically speaking, it's not February 14 yet. I got my gift from Kamope on 27 January, but still felt it was given in good spirit so didn't remove it. Having worked with Kamope a few times, let me reassure you that, so far, his/her edits have been 100% good faith and, as such, perhaps you could allow him/her to add his/her greetings as he/she sees fit! All the best... The Rambling Man 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I appreciate you didn't warn Kamope. If you check out User:Kamope I think you'll see why I think this editor works 100% good faith. I have to say I thought that getting such a greeting two-and-a-half weeks early was a shade strange, but it was all positive (and I don't get Valentine's cards from anyone but the person that counts!) so I (and probably a few other editors) didn't stress it. Anyway, enough said, good speaking with you, all the best The Rambling Man 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Could you look at this from ANI? It was archived with no comment or admin action, and has now been sitting on ANI, reposted, without any comment from admins. It seems a clear policy violation to me. I am not involved in the dispute, but do think it deserves attention. Thanks. Jeffpw 10:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

You removed my article 'playbike' last week, and I've been in discussion with an experienced user on 'WikiProject Motorcycling', who has given me some guidance on the matter. He suggested putting a suitably edited version of the article on the 'Types of motorcycle' page, and I think this sounds like a viable compromise. In the meantime, I mentioned earlier, that I had no copy of my original article, and would be most grateful if you could please re-instate my user page and place a copy of my original article on it, in order that I can make a copy, and use it as a template for the new insertion (minus any contentious bits of course). Thank you. playbike 13:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Donnie Davies

Sorry I didn't notify you that I posted the article on DRV, but I hadn't realized you were the admin who deleted the article. Thank you for your input and suggestions. Just to clarify (this is my first going through this process), were you suggesting that the article remain on the DRV for 4 more days before being brought up again on Afd or should I go ahead and post it there while others review it for 5 days? --SquatGoblin 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Valid G8 for the Deletion of Talk:7chan

Please elaborate on the logic behind removing a discussion page. Brain fork 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand now, however, I request that 7chan be merged with 4chan on the grounds that the former is descended of the latter and is thusly a part of it's history. Brain fork 06:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem

Is there a problem with my previous request, as you appear so far to be ignoring it? I'd appreciate a response. playbike 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Help maintaining unprotection for Barack Obama

Regarding this request, I realize my approach was awkward, and I would appreciate your advice on how to alert the Admin community more gracefully. This is a widely watchlisted article on a prominent political figure that Admins have been quick to semi-protect, sometimes, I feel, without allowing scope for the editors to deal with the problem or for the problem to resolve by itself. The last time the article was unprotected, it remained open for only two days, which is too short a time to really know if the vandalism would level off or not. I appreciate that there are different views (perhaps even among Admins) on the justifications for sprot, and when, where and for how long it should be applied, but I also think that it is fair to consider the views of the editorial community supporting the article. In this case, there is one editor favoring permanent sprot, others who are willing to see it toggled on and off, and people like me who would prefer that its use be limited to short periods and only when absolutely necessary after some sustained evidence that people-based approaches for managing the vandalism are not working. Periodic instances (or even seemingly coordinated waves) of vulgar or insulting edits that are speedily reverted by a dedicated community of recent change patrolers should not trigger a broadbrush IP/new user blocking sprot response by well-intentioned Admins, in my view. Sorry to go on at such length, but I would value your input on alternative strategies to alert Admins to look further before triggering sprot for this article. Thanks. --HailFire 11:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in on your talk, Core, but I'd rather keep the discussion centralized :) I believe that only your view is consistent with Misplaced Pages's semi-protection policy. Protections aren't only done through RFPP though, so a message there probably wouldn't do much. Semi-protection isn't supposed to be anything long or drawn out (except in some extraordinary circumstances), it's supposed to very much be a temporary measure. What happens is that admins set protection to deal with vandalism per a request or simply through browsing, but then forget to come back to unprotect. We just got the ability to set expiration times on protections, so that should help quite a bit in that department. Basically, there's really no mechanism (and I'm not sure there's any real need) to notify admins not to protect an article. If it gets protected to deal with vandalism, it can be unprotected very quickly through a request on the talk page or on WP:RFPP if no other admins see it first. —bbatsell ¿? 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)