Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:21, 18 June 2010

Tothwolf is busy making fat stacks until sometime in Q3 2010 and may not respond swiftly to queries.

When even ArbCom fails to stop disruptive behaviour, the project is abjectly failing and it is time for me to move on and spend my time on another project. It is sad that the name of the ArbCom case was chosen as it was as that created an inherit bias and may have been a significant factor in it not being properly addressed. I for one hope that I'm completely wrong about Misplaced Pages failing and things somehow turn around, but that may just turn out to be wishful thinking. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Wales, Jimmy (December 29, 2009). "Keep a Civil Cybertongue". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 13, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Welcome to my talk page!

• Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
• If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
  • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|Tothwolf}}.
  • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
  • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
  • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Diff

could you make your farewell diff something other than one that starts off with "Theserialcomma, you aren't fooling anyone here either." i am not interested in being attacked in your retirement message. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear, for your information the attack of the aggressive deletionists goes unnoticed by the Misplaced Pages community but not by the software development community - 83.249.210.228 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Java and Portal

I told you man that they would get you. Never revolt against the powers that be... While I reckon you could be hard to work with at time, I thank personally for helping me in the past. I herein grant you this barnstar for your contribution to this project. May you rest in peace. --  Alain  R 3 4 5 
07:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Computing Star
		Tothwolf

Nomination for deletion of Template:Misplaced Pages-Books

Template:Misplaced Pages-Books has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• User:Tothwolf is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

• User:JBsupreme is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

• User:Miami33139 and and User:JBsupreme are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing.

• The parties in particular, and other editors generally, are reminded to observe at all times Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines on dealing with harassed editors and on handling conflicts of interest.

• Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of IRC Clients

There are already 3 people calling for a more discriminate list on the talk page. Only listing notable clients is a move in that direction. If you'd like to contribute to that discussion you're free to.--Crossmr (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also see Misplaced Pages:NOT#DIR which is linked from WP:LIST Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Entries on lists or comparison articles are required to be "famous" which in wikipedia terms means notable. If they don't have an article they don't belong on the list.--Crossmr (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:NOT and no, entries are not required to be notable on their own per WP:NNC. The article is a Comparison not a list such as this horribly constructed thing in my userspace (userfied). Also see --Tothwolf (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually just because its called a comparison of, doesn't make it not a list. See Misplaced Pages:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions A multi-columned list is still a list. Even if it is being used for comparison.--Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll halfway agree with you— detailed comparison tables make something a comparison, which is what this is. You should spend some time reading the other links I provided before getting too involved in this one though. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read them, are you assuming I haven't? Whether its a detailed comparison table or not, it is still a list of objects. Whether you have it as one giant table or multiple tables. it theoretically could be one giant table which still makes it a list per that description.--Crossmr (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

MFD discussion

You may be interested in this MFD discussion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

notification

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Tothwolf

January 2010

Tothwolf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Evidence pertaining to has been emailed to Sandstein.

Decline reason:

I have been going over the events which led up to the block and the circumstances of the editing restrictions that you were given in the first place for about the last forty-five minutes or so. I feel that Sandstein's judgment in issuing the block was sound. You were not blocked for the information you presented, but rather the manner in which you presented it. I see no reason to remove or modify the block at this time. Trusilver 11:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In reply to your e-mail, I am not interested in the evidence as such (which is just a long list of links to external sites which am not in a position to evaluate), or in your dispute with Theserialcomma. I blocked you because you made wide-ranging accusations without providing any relevant evidence first.  Sandstein  09:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't COI/N for dispute resolution? As best I can tell, that is the best place for such concerns and I can't see how my post there violates what you linked to. I asked for someone uninvolved who is familiar with BLP and NPOV issues to review an article after it was edited by someone who had been berating and ranting about the subject of the BLP (during the time in which they edited it) on their blog (including linking to it and other related pages they were editing/creating). --Tothwolf (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your second e-mail, with respect to the alleged off-wiki harrassment, I strongly advise you to proceed as recommended in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Dealing with harassment. As to any on-wiki harrassment, apparently the Arbitration Committee evaluated these issues at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Findings of fact and I am in no position to doubt their findings. If you believe that you continue to be harrassed on-wiki after the closure of that case, you should make a report to an appropriate administrators' board such as WP:WQA, supplying all relevant diffs as evidence.  Sandstein  12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Already have and it doesn't look like anything is going to change. With the ongoing harassment preventing me from editing anything anyway, and now a punitive block I guess I'll just give up editing for now (maybe someone can convince me to return later). I think my time will be better spent elsewhere and on other projects where harassment is actually taken seriously. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

arbcom enforcement

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=344695263

ANI

I have made a report on the current incident to ANI. I have requested that you and Theserialcomma both answer questions regarding the off-wiki email claims. See . Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Further this - Theserialcomma asked, in a comment on JBsupreme's talk page, that I ask you not to email Theserialcomma any further. Though I am asking the questions on the ANI report to try and clarify the situation of what has actually happened, please going forwards respect Theserialcomma's request and don't send any future emails to them.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The only emails I've sent Theserialcomma have been messages saying "Leave me alone". If she will leave me alone and allow me to return to editing computing and technology articles there will be no reason for either of us to have any contact with one another. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement of support

For whatever it's worth, I think you're clearly in the right as far as this ridiculous garbage on WP:ANI about you goes. Jtrainor (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio

I will not restore it — the article was deleted rather than being userfied, and the last version of the article is identical to the last version of the page I deleted yesterday. G4 applies to content in all namespaces, and this is not the "short biography" idea included at Misplaced Pages:User page. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger

Hi, Tothwolf. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger. Cunard (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Koman90}} Koman90 (talk), A+ (Verify) 00:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE

Another editor has made a request concerning you at WP:AE#Tothwolf. You may want to reply.  Sandstein  20:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Why am I not surprised... Thanks for letting me know. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

That certainly wasn't a personal attack. If this keeps up, Sandstein, I'm either going to end up leaving in the project in disgust or end up a non-productive editor (I haven't been able to edit that much anyway due to the harassment). Sandstein, I suggest you rethink your block here because unlike last time, I will challenge this one. Allowing Theserialcomma to continue to harass other editors is also only going to escalate matters. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

per appeal below

Decline reason:

Basically, Sandstein says the indefinite block was due to mail you sent him allegedly threatening to vandalize; and you say it wasn't doing that, but you're unwilling for the mail to be "shared with others"; that being the case, I have to take Sandstein's word for it, as he's generally quite reliable on vandalism and threats of vandalism. --jpgordon 21:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A reviewing admin should move the appeal below to an appropriate community forum such as WP:AN, per WP:AEBLOCK, unless they believe that the appeal has no chance to succeed (which I think is rather likely). I'll comment once the appeal is on a community forum.  Sandstein  21:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, thanks for clarifying that, I forgot to add such a note myself while adding the other template. I really don't see how you could justify an indef 10 hours after I sent that email (in which I probably vented a little too much, which carried over into emails soon after with Hersfold, as he can certainly attest to). If I was really "a credible threat of systematic vandalism." per your comments here then wouldn't my contribution history show something other than good-faith edits? --Tothwolf (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether your entire contribution history contains only good faith edits (although you being sanctioned by ArbCom indicates otherwise), but I note that you have so far not retracted your implied threat of Grawp-style vandalism. Don't expect to be unblocked, at least by not me, unless you do so convincingly and publicly.  Sandstein  06:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I didn't make an "implied threat of Grawp-style vandalism" and for that fact didn't make any threats of vandalism, period. I did however imply in my comment that Grawp is a "vindictive, nasty troll". Again, I suggest you rethink that block as everyone who has asked me for a copy of that email off-wiki seemed to understand the sarcasm. Second, and more importantly, if you are going to publicly make a statement to the effect that I'm somehow a "vandal" and imply that there might be something questionable in my contribution history then I am going to have to insist that you back it up with some sort of evidence. To do otherwise and to indef block my account for a sarcastic comment said in frustration off-wiki 10 hours before you changed the block settings is simply not appropriate. (Yes, at this point I'm being blunt as this seems to resolve things much faster than beating around the bush.) <vulcan logic>Further, if you genuinely considered me to be a "vandal", wouldn't you have had someone globally ban me from all the various Wikimedia wikis where I contribute?</vulcan logic> --Tothwolf (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll gladly forward the email in question to any uninvolved administrators who wish to see what was said. Send me an email (there is a link at the top of my talk page) and I'll forward it along. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by Tothwolf

Appealing user

Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tothwolf (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Block:

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

The appealing editor is asked to notify the editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise.

Statement by Tothwolf

Sandstein blocked my account after I made this reply which he considered a personal attack . I'm not really sure how he could consider it a personal attack and despite my queries, he did not elaborate beyond that general description. My reply there is certainly not friendly (I pointed out how Theserialcomma continues to make personal attacks against myself, edit things I've written and post them as quotes, etc) but I don't feel that it should be considered a personal attack.

Sandstein has since extended the block after I challenged the initial block via email, where I also vented over the frustration over how the ongoing harassment issues with Theserialcomma have thus far been handled. I honestly don't know how Sandstein could construe my venting said frustration via email and turn it into "I consider this a credible threat of systematic vandalism." but per this is his reasoning.

The way Sandstein has handled this so far certainly does have me reconsidering why I've ever bothered to contribute to Misplaced Pages and could easily result in driving an otherwise active good-faith contributor away from Misplaced Pages. I consider Sandstein's comments where he claims I made "a credible threat of systematic vandalism" to be quite offensive and his comments are certainly not backed up by my contribution history or account permissions .

Statement by Sandstein

Comments by others about the appeal by Tothwolf

Result of the appeal by Tothwolf

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The Arbitration Committee is aware of this request and will respond soon. Hersfold 22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Block discussion AN/I request

I ask that an uninvolved administrator initiate an AN/I discussion regarding the block noted above and Theserialcomma's long term harassment of myself and other editors.

A great amount of detail can be found in these links:

Note when Theserialcomma's harassment of myself first began:

This has been going on for nearly a year: (full discussion) (full report)

Theserialcomma's behaviours have been discussed in many past AN/I discussions (many of which are not related in any way to me). There are way too many of these to link to them individually:

Theserialcomma's own contribution history:

If this cannot be resolved, someone may as well "indef" me because this is exactly what Theserialcomma has been trying to have done to me all along.

--Tothwolf (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can gladly copy any statement or request to ANI, but in light of the below I assume you might want to adapt the above. I have no idea what this is all about, but would suggest that you focus less on the other side in whatever dispute you two are having, per WP:NOTTHEM. The above statement is not going to help you. Amalthea 15:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea, thanks. Re below, it appears that Sandstein just took something out of context and overreacted. If an uninvolved admin would please step in here I really would appreciate it. Sandstein initially took issue with my reply here and then apparently the email where I challenged his block over that comment, in which I also vented some of the frustration over the long term harassment from Theserialcomma which still has yet to be addressed. Truth be known, maybe I should just create a new account as to not have to put up with Theserialcomma anymore... As noted above, this has been going on for nearly a year and I firmly believe I'm within my right to be frustrated that this is still going on. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, how about this: would you object to Sandstein re-posting the contents of that email here so that we may judge for ourselves rather than having to choose which of you to believe about it's contents? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would object to it being shared with others as I'm not exactly proud of the venting I did immediately after he blocked my account. I think my contribution history should speak for itself anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your e-mail threatening vandalism

This is to confirm that I am in receipt of your e-mail in which you announce that you consider becoming "a vindictive, nasty troll" like Grawp if what you describe as misconduct by others remains condoned. I consider this a credible threat of systematic vandalism. In prevention of this, I am indefinitely blocking you from editing Misplaced Pages. You may appeal this block as described at WP:GAB. Administrators reviewing any unblock request should consider that this complements the 72h arbitration enforcement block noted above, so any unblock should not occur before the expiration of that 72h block.  Sandstein  10:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI report

I have reported your removal of my comments pertaining to your indefinite block. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your e-mail concerning "Additional evidence and information post-ArbCom case"

I am in receipt of this e-mail by you. Most of it is about your disputes with other editors, which do not concern me. To the extent that you request to be unblocked, your request is declined because you have not yet retracted what I consider a sincere threat of Grawp-style vandalism. Your arguments concerning what you argue is your vandalism-free contribution history are beside the point; you are not blocked for any past vandalism, but for the threat of future vandalism. You are free to request unblock through the normal procedure (WP:GAB), but I advise against an unblock under the current circumstances.  Sandstein  19:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The email you are referring to here contains a lot more material than what you just glossed over and a large part of it has absolutely nothing to do with any disputes I've had with other editors. Given your statement of "Most of it is about your disputes with other editors, which do not concern me." I have to question if you even read it.
2. I made no threat of "vandalism", period (no form of the word "vandal" was implied or used at all in the email in question) and I will not "retract" a claim I never made. Please stop attempting to somehow shoehorn words into my mouth.
3. While it seems I did make a mistake in using sarcasm while dealing with you, given the points I made in the email you just referred to, I consider your continued assertions that I'm somehow a "vandal" both offensive and highly inappropriate.
4. You've still not addressed the points I made here nor the points I made in the email you referred to here.

--Tothwolf (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, indirect as it was, in that particular part of the email you mentioned Grawp, pretty much the vandalism archetype hereabouts.
It would go a long way if you would retract that indirect threat of disruption – yes, I'm reading it the same way. WP:SARCASM. Amalthea 23:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned Grawp as the troll to beat all trolls and not once did I mention or imply vandalism in any way (which is what Sandstein had been claiming and I found quite offensive). The majority of the people who've seen that email laughed at it or said it was {{trout}} worthy (I halfway agree with the trout worthiness) but none took it quite the way Sandstein did.
If it helps, my tongue-in-cheek comments where I vented at Sandstein in which I compared another editor to that of a "vindictive, nasty troll" and mentioned Grawp were not intended to be taken literally and not meant to imply (nor were they written to imply) that I had any aspirations as to becoming a "vandal" (as Sandstein put it) or otherwise had any actual intentions of becoming a "troll". --Tothwolf (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading the email again now. It clearly implies that if other users weren't sanctioned, you would become a "vindictive, nasty troll" on the order of Grawp. Shall I post the text of the email here? Hersfold 00:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's worded ambiguously, I'd say. That half sentence starts with "perhaps", and I for one can accept that it was a misguided attempt at sarcasm. With the clarification above and the assertion that it wasn't intended that way, I consider this part of the issue resolved. Does anyone really believe that this threat would have been followed through? It was always clearly born out of anger – which is a different problem, of course, and leaves me much more concerned that Tothwolf will have similar slips in the future and not abide by the restriction; however, there is a clear escalation path defined for that case, so that too should be covered. Amalthea 00:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In the future I certainly intend to be more a little more careful where and with whom I use sarcasm. One individual pointed out to me off-wiki that a number of Wikipedians are half-vulcan and have no concept of sarcasm or even any opaque forms of humor. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hersfold, I never said anything about sanctions? As I wrote above that part of the email I sent Sandstein certainly wasn't written to be interpreted in a literal sense (as you appear to be doing, or is this one of your devil's advocate arguments intended to point out that others could conceivably misinterpret what I wrote? If the later I'm already aware of that now so there isn't any need.) I thought the sarcasm was obvious when I wrote it and so far most people who've seen it read it the way I had intended, although several also pointed out that some people might try to take the tongue-in-cheek comments literally.
As I replied to others above, I don't wish my emails to be posted on-wiki (that includes all emails I've written, not just that one extremely short and sarcastic email). This is also per Misplaced Pages policy; My emails are not licensed under the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses so they should not to be publicly posted or redistributed without my permission as I've not licensed them for redistribution or in a manner compatible with either of those licenses. That said, I do have some other material related to the larger issues I vented at Sandstein about which I'll email in a day or so after I have time to finish looking up some additional diffs and discussion links, and I probably will post that material publicly later on. I think my frustration and sarcastic comments may make more sense once that additional material clarifies things as I'm not the only one who has been frustrated with the larger issue. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not helping you in the least. If you're not prepared to let this all go and focus on content, then I can't help you. Amalthea 01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the last bit above about the additional material, I think it will go a long way towards clarifying a lot of things (I've had a number of others look over some of the material already, although it was still in an outline form and quite rough). Had I known months ago what I know now I'd have included much of it in the original ArbCom case (perhaps even in place of some of the other tl;dr material) but I wasn't aware that it was something ArbCom would have wanted or could have put to good use. It certainly isn't going to be my primary long-term focus but a number of things were not clear in that ArbCom case and since I've been unable to work on content for several weeks, I've been putting the free time I normally would have used for content to good use. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ByxnetLogo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:ByxnetLogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Collapse discussion on Talk:Comparison_of_S.M.A.R.T._tools

Would you mind if we collapse the discussion on the Talk:Comparison_of_S.M.A.R.T._tools, it appears to be causing hostility among the other users. Cheers. --Hm2k (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The old discussion from September 2009 before we began to work things out? I don't have a problem with that as it looks like it is stale anyway. I've not been following the later discussions. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --Hm2k (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Taelus}} Taelus (Talk) 16:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied again. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry if the post on my talk page and my edit summary sounded rude. Right now, I'm dealing with POV pushers on a certain article and a member who wants to keep an article just based on Google hits. Joe Chill (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding POV pushers, I certainly know the feeling as I've been watching two opposing camps go at it elsewhere. That said, as for it really is up to you to know the subject you are nominating for AfD, before making the nomination. I have no desire whatsoever to get involved in AfD right now but now that you have more information, you can work on fixing those two articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net

Hi, Tothwolf. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tothwolf/Bash.org

An editor has asked me to revisit the outcome of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/Bash.org. Four months have elapsed since the MfD and six months since the article was userfied, and the article has remained virtually unchanged—by extension, the reason for which the article was deleted at AfD remains unaddressed.

Do you think that you will be able to improve the article in the near future in order to address the original reasons for deletion? If you no longer intend to work on the article, or if the sources simply aren't there, then please indicate this so that the draft does not needlessly remain as an archive of deleted material. If you do not intend or lack the time to work on it now but would like to revisit it in the future, then I urge you to consider saving it off-wiki. If the same MfD had taken place now (6 months post-userfication, instead of 2 months), there would have been clear consensus to delete.

I am contacting you in the hope that you can clarify whether and how you intend(ed) to use the draft. Thank you, -- Black Falcon 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

While there is no deadline, I've added some of my notes to the talk page here. I do not believe statements such as the one User:Blaxthos made in the MfD "I further suggest that it can never be improved to the point of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, as there are no (and will likely never be) any reliable sources dealing with the subject." hold any water when sources such as this book which make a strong case for notability are easily located: Mutton, Paul (27 July 2004). "Fun Bots". IRC hacks. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media. p. 242. ISBN 0-596-00687-X. One of the most popular IRC quotes web sites is http://www.bash.org, which contains thousands of manually approved funny quotes. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"No deadline" does not apply in the same way to normal article content as it does to previously deleted content. Specifically, intent and ability (i.e., whether adequate coverage in reliable sources exists) to develop or improve a draft are significant factors—the references and notes which you provided speak to that, though of course being mentioned or cited in published works is not the same as receiving substantial coverage in published works, which is the standard of notability. Again, if it is not likely that you will be able to work on the draft in the near future, saving it to an off-wiki text editor may be worth considering.

I appreciate your clarification, though, and I'll advise Blaxthos to take a look at the references you provided when considering whether to pursue deletion of the draft. Thank you, -- Black Falcon 22:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The notes which I've added to the talk page are far from a complete list of references but could make for a very strong case of notability. An alternative of course would be to merge the content and that of several other previously deleted articles into a larger article covering the topic of online quote databases.

It would probably be for the best if Blaxthos were to choose to be completely uninvolved in matters relating to Misplaced Pages's coverage of bash.org and other online quote databases due to his personal involvement (current owner of the "bash.org" domain) and perceived conflict of interest regarding the ownership history of bash.org and quote database itself. He is of course more than welcome to add suggestions to the talk page but the edit history of the article and past interaction with Blaxthos seems to indicate that he takes the article very personally and it may be very difficult for him to maintain a neutral point of view. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)