Misplaced Pages

User talk:Erwin Walsh: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:28, 20 August 2005 editErwin Walsh (talk | contribs)497 edits Delete← Previous edit Revision as of 15:45, 20 August 2005 edit undoGorgonzilla (talk | contribs)1,656 edits RV attempt to suppress criticism DURING an Rfc against user, propose lock.Next edit →
Line 6: Line 6:


A helpful delete log is available ]. A helpful delete log is available ].

===New Policy===
Comments may be removed once they have been read. You can check history for historical records. ] 13:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


== Esperanza == == Esperanza ==
Line 17: Line 14:


Hi Erwin! Thanks for spotting that ] was something which ought to be deleted. It's gone now. Remember to use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki>-tag, or <nowiki>{{db|Reason this page should be speedy deleted}}</nowiki>-tag for suggesting speedy deletions, because the <nowiki>{{csd}}</nowiki>-tag is used for category deletions. (<nowiki>Also {{subst:vfd}}</nowiki>-tags are used for "regular" deletions, <nowiki>{{ifd}}</nowiki> for image deletions and <nowiki>{{rfd}}</nowiki> for redirect deletions. A lot to keep track of there, isn't it? :-)) Cheers, ] ] 13:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Hi Erwin! Thanks for spotting that ] was something which ought to be deleted. It's gone now. Remember to use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki>-tag, or <nowiki>{{db|Reason this page should be speedy deleted}}</nowiki>-tag for suggesting speedy deletions, because the <nowiki>{{csd}}</nowiki>-tag is used for category deletions. (<nowiki>Also {{subst:vfd}}</nowiki>-tags are used for "regular" deletions, <nowiki>{{ifd}}</nowiki> for image deletions and <nowiki>{{rfd}}</nowiki> for redirect deletions. A lot to keep track of there, isn't it? :-)) Cheers, ] ] 13:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

==Sheesh==

Thank you so much for adding a VFD tag to an article just three minutes after I saved the first draft. Your helpful intervention is what makes Misplaced Pages so rewarding to contribute to. Not. --] 16:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Same for the copyvio on material in ] copied from elsewhere in Wiki that was about to be edited anyway. The text is entirely replaced with the version of the article from the Abramoff piece I was about to merge in. --] 00:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

there is no way that you could possibly have made a considered judgement on the issue of a copyright violation in the three minutes between the article being created and you slapping on the copyvio. You clearly did not take any time to look at the material and did not even bother to write a talk entry. Your account was created only a few hours ago and you already have done this more than once.--] 01:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Same for ] which, while a stub at best (though with a picture), was VFDed within minutes of creation. Obviously a new form of troll. ] 20:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

== Find another cure for your boredom ==
- Your activities are almost exclusively in the area of VFD and already you have an impressive track record of pushing your unconsidered personal opinion and generating work for other people in the process. In one case you slammed as "your own private website" an article about a company in business since 1936. You are a loose cannon. ] 13:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

== VFD Walsh? ==

I suggest that if this twit does not stop plastering VFD and copyvio over every page he sees that he be reported. No, strike that I think he should be reported. Many of his deletes seem to be within minutes of the original post, far too little time to read the article or consider whether it really is a problem. --] 14:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

*Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Scrumpy Jack consensus KEEP
*Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/The GNU Organisation DELETE
*Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Momoloe Only one delete vote
*Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Rental Monster DELETE
*Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Toggled DELETE
*Quad Electroacoustics WITHDRAWN after complaint

So your average is 3 out of 5. That is only 60%, much less than the 90% you boasted about on my user page. Your average in copyviolations is 50%. That is not a good record for your first day.--] 14:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:] has 4 keep votes already, 100% keep. Walsh's reason for deleting was, "No place in wikipedia. Perhaps move to geekpedia." ] 14:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:The page of mine that he VFD'd after three minutes was ]. He's now withdrawn that VFD. (I just mention that in case anyone's looking for the page.) The guy is behaving like a monumental pillock, has annoyed several users in his first 24 hours, and if he doesn't desist pronto I will happily vote him to be shitcanned. --]

*Erwin, your VfD nomination of ] is well-founded, but the personal attack ("Get a life") is unacceptable. This isn't your first warning about your conduct. I suggest reading ] and ] and adhering to them. ] ]/] 17:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


==Please, nobody remove any more comments.==

Instead, try responding to them, no matter how crazy they may seem. In the case of this {{tl|test4}} message added originally by ](see ), it seems to me to be incorrectly used, for the following reasons:
:*It is unsigned, so it is not clear (without using the history) who wrote it.
:*It is not clear exactly what it refers to; in this case there are multiple possible disputes going on, so it is important to specify which one is being referred to.
:*If it is in reference to violating the ], then it is the wrong template - 3RR violations '''are not vandalism'''.
:*If it is in reference to removing comments, while removing comments is a Very Bad Thing, it is not generally considered vandalism. Comments, while very important, are not content.
:*If it is in reference to the apparent original dispute, to whit, bad VfDs, bad VfDs are simply not a blockable offence - vandalising the VfD page is, but putting too many or the wrong pages on VfD is simply an irritation, and possibly a case of ], but '''not''' vandalism.
:This is why I consider the above test4 template to be incorrectly applied to this page. However, as I said above, nobody remove it - everyone should be clearly able to see what is going on. Thanks for all the contributions to the pedia by everyone involved. (And please sign all your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) ] 18:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::I just reported Walsh on the administrator page, after posting his claim to have taken a break he VFD'd yet another recently posted article clearly in the process of being edited. The scope of the articles suggests that what Walsh is doing is simply tracking some 'recently posted' page and deciding if the articles there meet with his personal approval. Walsh clearly has no understanding of many of the issues he is posting VFD on. Walsh has since attempted to revert this notice of report. Walsh will be reported for breaking the three revert rule as well if he does this again.

::::: After they were removed in favor of the delete log reference (retained immediately below), I restored the above criticisms. I have changed some outline depths for clarity and on one item resequenced and manually added a time/user signature based on page history to clarify authorial voice and logical sequence. &mdash; <tt>] 21:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)</tt>

Walsh appears to be removing comments not added at the bottom of the page, and is requesting that posters identify who they are, and what they are commenting on. ] Wikiquette dictates Identification is normally provided by User & Timestamp at the comment's end, usually provided by insertion of <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at comments end. Adding items to the end of page is usually reserved for new items of discussion. Adding comments only at the bottom is not required or even common Talk page style. Comments on Talk pages that are followup responses to a previous comment are usually appended in-line after the subject, with an increasing level of indentation provided by use of : :: ::: &c at the start of line...

:... like this. Walsh also appears to be removing comments critical of him. This is ], barring resolved disputes; as this page is under three days old (earliest User contribution 11:54, 12 August 2005), this is not appropriate at this time. Combined with the extensive advocacy of deletion of articles and the extremely young age of the UserID, I would recommend a block or ban on the account. One really should spend some time expanding Misplaced Pages and contributings substance to articles for a while, rather than starting out by <nowiki>{vfd}</nowiki>ing everything in sight. &mdash; ] 22:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

==RfC==
I suggest, if you're having problems with a User, that you create a ] on them to see if you can garner community opinion on the matter. ]


== Moan == == Moan ==
Line 28: Line 80:


I came here to discuss this same topic, so I will second Acetic Acid's comments. Please refrain from personal attacks, on VfD pages or anywhere else. And don't post comments like "ghey" any more. ] 22:50, August 19, 2005 (UTC) I came here to discuss this same topic, so I will second Acetic Acid's comments. Please refrain from personal attacks, on VfD pages or anywhere else. And don't post comments like "ghey" any more. ] 22:50, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

:: How ironic? ]



I was just about to stop watching you having concluded that you had started being a bit more responsible. And no, following another user around to undo damage is not considered a bad thing. --] 01:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC) I was just about to stop watching you having concluded that you had started being a bit more responsible. And no, following another user around to undo damage is not considered a bad thing. --] 01:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


== Hey == == Request for Comment ==


Thanks for your great contributions! ] 05:33, August 20, 2005 (UTC) Due to your distruptive behavior during recent VfDs, I've opened a RfC against you. Please go to it and provide a response. You can find it ]. ] 05:33, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


==]== ==]==

Revision as of 15:45, 20 August 2005

Disclaimer

Please note that I am now taking a two month Wikibreak to Bermuda, during which time my cat Salem will be filling in for me on RC Patrol, etc. Unfortunately, he is unable to answer talk page queries for obvious reasons. Bye! Erwin Walsh 15:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Log

A helpful delete log is available here.

Esperanza

Excuse me? How could the word esperanza be interpreted as being racist? -JCarriker 12:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, you misunderstand there are no restrictions on who might join. I'm not even Spanish, I'm Southern. Thanks for your concerns though. -JCarriker 12:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete tags

Hi Erwin! Thanks for spotting that Maximum delay was something which ought to be deleted. It's gone now. Remember to use the {{delete}}-tag, or {{db|Reason this page should be speedy deleted}}-tag for suggesting speedy deletions, because the {{csd}}-tag is used for category deletions. (Also {{subst:vfd}}-tags are used for "regular" deletions, {{ifd}} for image deletions and {{rfd}} for redirect deletions. A lot to keep track of there, isn't it? :-)) Cheers, Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh

Thank you so much for adding a VFD tag to an article just three minutes after I saved the first draft. Your helpful intervention is what makes Misplaced Pages so rewarding to contribute to. Not. --Spliced 16:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Same for the copyvio on material in Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal copied from elsewhere in Wiki that was about to be edited anyway. The text is entirely replaced with the version of the article from the Abramoff piece I was about to merge in. --Gorgonzilla 00:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

there is no way that you could possibly have made a considered judgement on the issue of a copyright violation in the three minutes between the article being created and you slapping on the copyvio. You clearly did not take any time to look at the material and did not even bother to write a talk entry. Your account was created only a few hours ago and you already have done this more than once.--Gorgonzilla 01:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Same for Pride of Baltimore which, while a stub at best (though with a picture), was VFDed within minutes of creation. Obviously a new form of troll. PeteVerdon 20:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Find another cure for your boredom

- Your activities are almost exclusively in the area of VFD and already you have an impressive track record of pushing your unconsidered personal opinion and generating work for other people in the process. In one case you slammed as "your own private website" an article about a company in business since 1936. You are a loose cannon. Mirror Vax 13:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD Walsh?

I suggest that if this twit does not stop plastering VFD and copyvio over every page he sees that he be reported. No, strike that I think he should be reported. Many of his deletes seem to be within minutes of the original post, far too little time to read the article or consider whether it really is a problem. --Gorgonzilla 14:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Scrumpy Jack consensus KEEP
  • Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/The GNU Organisation DELETE
  • Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Momoloe Only one delete vote
  • Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Rental Monster DELETE
  • Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Toggled DELETE
  • Quad Electroacoustics WITHDRAWN after complaint

So your average is 3 out of 5. That is only 60%, much less than the 90% you boasted about on my user page. Your average in copyviolations is 50%. That is not a good record for your first day.--Gorgonzilla 14:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/MathPlayer has 4 keep votes already, 100% keep. Walsh's reason for deleting was, "No place in wikipedia. Perhaps move to geekpedia." Mirror Vax 14:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The page of mine that he VFD'd after three minutes was Quad Electroacoustics. He's now withdrawn that VFD. (I just mention that in case anyone's looking for the page.) The guy is behaving like a monumental pillock, has annoyed several users in his first 24 hours, and if he doesn't desist pronto I will happily vote him to be shitcanned. --Spliced


Please, nobody remove any more comments.

Instead, try responding to them, no matter how crazy they may seem. In the case of this {{test4}} message added originally by Gorgonzilla(see this revision), it seems to me to be incorrectly used, for the following reasons:

  • It is unsigned, so it is not clear (without using the history) who wrote it.
  • It is not clear exactly what it refers to; in this case there are multiple possible disputes going on, so it is important to specify which one is being referred to.
  • If it is in reference to violating the WP:3RR, then it is the wrong template - 3RR violations are not vandalism.
  • If it is in reference to removing comments, while removing comments is a Very Bad Thing, it is not generally considered vandalism. Comments, while very important, are not content.
  • If it is in reference to the apparent original dispute, to whit, bad VfDs, bad VfDs are simply not a blockable offence - vandalising the VfD page is, but putting too many or the wrong pages on VfD is simply an irritation, and possibly a case of WP:POINT, but not vandalism.
This is why I consider the above test4 template to be incorrectly applied to this page. However, as I said above, nobody remove it - everyone should be clearly able to see what is going on. Thanks for all the contributions to the pedia by everyone involved. (And please sign all your comments with ~~~~) JesseW 18:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I just reported Walsh on the administrator page, after posting his claim to have taken a break he VFD'd yet another recently posted article clearly in the process of being edited. The scope of the articles suggests that what Walsh is doing is simply tracking some 'recently posted' page and deciding if the articles there meet with his personal approval. Walsh clearly has no understanding of many of the issues he is posting VFD on. Walsh has since attempted to revert this notice of report. Walsh will be reported for breaking the three revert rule as well if he does this again.
After they were removed in favor of the delete log reference (retained immediately below), I restored the above criticisms. I have changed some outline depths for clarity and on one item resequenced and manually added a time/user signature based on page history to clarify authorial voice and logical sequence. — 69.68.185.70 21:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Walsh appears to be removing comments not added at the bottom of the page, and is requesting that posters identify who they are, and what they are commenting on. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette Wikiquette dictates Identification is normally provided by User & Timestamp at the comment's end, usually provided by insertion of ~~~~ at comments end. Adding items to the end of page is usually reserved for new items of discussion. Adding comments only at the bottom is not required or even common Talk page style. Comments on Talk pages that are followup responses to a previous comment are usually appended in-line after the subject, with an increasing level of indentation provided by use of : :: ::: &c at the start of line...

... like this. Walsh also appears to be removing comments critical of him. This is frowned upon, barring resolved disputes; as this page is under three days old (earliest User contribution 11:54, 12 August 2005), this is not appropriate at this time. Combined with the extensive advocacy of deletion of articles and the extremely young age of the UserID, I would recommend a block or ban on the account. One really should spend some time expanding Misplaced Pages and contributings substance to articles for a while, rather than starting out by {vfd}ing everything in sight. — 69.68.185.70 22:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I suggest, if you're having problems with a User, that you create a Request for Comment on them to see if you can garner community opinion on the matter. Zoe

Moan

The assertion that this article is a recreation of previously deleted content is incorrect (specifically, the deleted content was a single line, and the current article is a page and a half). For that reason, I've closed the VFD. If you wish to suggest that porn stars aren't notable per se, I'd suggest looking at some others, as there are a number of such 'stars' on wikipedia with less renown than DeMoan. Radiant_>|< 09:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you're the boss. Erwin Walsh

Language

I ask that you please watch your language. I saw your comments on the Anal Masturbation VfD. Please assume good faith and do not make any more personal attacks. Acetic Acid 22:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I came here to discuss this same topic, so I will second Acetic Acid's comments. Please refrain from personal attacks, on VfD pages or anywhere else. And don't post comments like "ghey" any more. Zoe 22:50, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to stop watching you having concluded that you had started being a bit more responsible. And no, following another user around to undo damage is not considered a bad thing. --Gorgonzilla 01:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Due to your distruptive behavior during recent VfDs, I've opened a RfC against you. Please go to it and provide a response. You can find it here. Acetic Acid 05:33, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Campbell Slemp

You put a copyvio boilerplate on Campbell Slemp without listing it on the copyright problems page, and without indicating where you think it might have been copied from. Please don't do that. Zoe 08:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)