Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grutness (talk | contribs) at 13:14, 19 January 2006 (→Stamina). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talkpage!

Ordinarily, any comments placed here will stay, and only simple vandalism will be reverted. Personal attacks against me will stay, such comments say a lot more about the person making them than the person who is targeted.

Note that I am quite inconsistent with where I make responses. If it is a response I think several people might be interested in reading, I might respond here. Otherwise, I will probably respond on your talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Previous archives of my talkpage can be found at

• User talk:Sjakkalle/March and April 2005
• User talk:Sjakkalle/May and June 2005
• User talk:Sjakkalle/July and August 2005
• User talk:Sjakkalle/September and October 2005
• User talk:Sjakkalle/November and December 2005

Hey

Some anon I.P. just mini-vandelised your talkpage. You just warned him for vandalism too, just a heads up. I gave him a {{subst:test3}}. By the way, welcome back =D. - iGod 08:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to be back! Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thanks for your comment in the AfD for Wisbech Grammar School concerning the content of the article as it was at the time of nomination. I've revisited the expanded article and changed my vote to keep, now that there is context/notability established. Your comment on my behalf is much appreciated. —ERcheck @ 19:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA!

Thanks for your kind words and nomination! I am both grateful and slightly surprised. Five days ago my first barnstar, now this, hehe. I accept the nomination, and have attempted to answer the questions. Please take a look at User:Punkmorten/Sandbox and tell me if anything is missing. Or if anything should be removed. Again thanks, Punkmorten 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/TC4

Thanks. - brenneman 11:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hideliho Sjakalino!

Ok, if the guy is a vandal then that's cause for a block. But note that the block log (and his userpage) read "usernameblock". So something's not quite right here. Radiant_>|< 12:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have put a little note at the bottom of the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony's redirect

I've redirected Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway to the first RfC, now called Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 1, if that's okay with you. That seems to make most sense. SlimVirgin 12:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Sigh. What is wrong with the World? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

People like me? Anyway, thanks to you both for fixing this up. - brenneman 12:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. We'll see how it goes, if there is no endorsement on it in 48 hours we will have avoided that reef. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A Barnstar

I know this doesn't really mean much from someone who you've never met, but i'd like to award you for your vandal fighting in the last few days. You've always beat me to the edit and you've been kicking some vandal ass. You go! Keep it up. - iGod 14:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Thanks!!!!

You're welcome! Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support of my RfA, and for your generous comments. I appreciate your confidence. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom Harrison 13:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

IP ban

Hey Sjakkalle! This IP address belongs to the Norwegian school Thor Heyerdahl VGS, and after reading through its user page, I think the IP should be permanently banned from editing. Quite honestly, very few (if any at all) here are actually contributing to Misplaced Pages, as all the edits I've seen so far were vandalizm. Please consider doing so, for Misplaced Pages's sake. User_talk:139.164.130.171 Also, right now I'm on a second IP, maybe it too should be blocked. 139.164.130.170 10:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As a rule, we never block IPs permanently unless it is an open proxy. What you see from looking at an IPs contributions are the edits made without being logged in. Blocking the IP will mean that the logged in users will be unable to use the IP as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the answer anyway. I understand that youguys want to keep the system open for the general public, but it is sad that so many decide to abuse their privilege. 139.164.130.170 10:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Answers

1. How long do you think an article on a locomotive ought to be before we can say it is not a stub? I have created a few articles on the Norwegian locomotives in the past weeks, and some people seem to think that template:electric-loco-stub needs to be filled with articles in order to be worthy.
   • Yeah, some random busybody has got it in for that template for some reason, but it shouldn't be deleted.
2. Exactly what is the definition of "slam door" with regard to passenger carriages. Does it simply mean the doors are conventional ones on hinges, or does it refer to the carriages with lots of doors all leading directly into the main seating area?
   • Slam doors are the opposite of sliding doors. In the UK they are also ignorant press talk for EMUs, based on the British Railways Mark 1 bodyshell, i.e. the early 4XX series. Some had lots of doors down the sides, some did not e.g. .
3. The coupling rod article says that they refer to the rods on the driving wheels of a steam engine. What are the similar rods called on (usually older) electric locomotives?
   • Coupling rods (I presume). You get them on diesel shunters too. The designation for a bogie driven off one traction motor is B-B which includes those with coupling rods , but I guess since electric locomotives came after steam engines then they borrowed the term. I don't know of any British electric locomotives that had coupling rods though, I suspect some earlier Swiss ones might.

— Dunc|☺ 11:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bobby George

I'm not fully convinced yet, but it's moving in the right direction. I've asked the expander to address my issues. - Mgm| 13:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Misplaced Pages

Please be extra-careful when reverting vandalism on the Misplaced Pages article. The article is vandalized so frequently that there are often multiple vandalisms in a row, so reverting one of them doesn't catch the others. Always look at the history before rolling back. In this case, you reverted an obvious vandalism, but a non-obvious tag vandalism wasn't caught for hours.--Eloquence* 18:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Eep..., thanks for spotting it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom advice

• This is a difficult question. I myself have not fully answered it. I can tell you who I am not voting for and the reason for it. First, the reason: There is a very serious and growing problem within Misplaced Pages. Some of the nature of this problem is outlined by me here. But, that does not cover the entire problem. I've been pondering how to scope the problem for a while, in an attempt to clearly define exactly what the problem is and do so in as concise a manner as possible so as to gather people within Misplaced Pages in a unified voice to declare the problem as real and in need of being solved. I've been in discussions with a number of people both here and offline in trying to achieve this. At this point, I don't think I'll be able to complete this work before the elections begin, and I certainly won't be able to garner support sufficient to sway people's voting patterns to produce an ArbCom that is willing to tackle the issue. I wish I'd really understand the gravity of the situation some months ago, but I was not as fully aware of it then as I am now. As much as I understand it at this point in time, these are the factors that play into this problem:
  • Casual disrespect for new users by admins, some members of ArbCom, and even Jimbo. Not only must you be an experienced user to have your voice heard (and even being an admin doesn't count as experienced anymore), but you must also be acceptable by some nebulous standard before your voice carries any weight. In short, if you're not in the 'in' group, your voice lacks merit.
  • Willful ignorance of policy and guidelines by some admins, and ArbCom supporting their actions in many cases.
  • ArbCom's utter unwillingness to hear a case against some people yet clear willingness to hear cases against other admins who behaved much in the same way. I.e., major bias within ArbCom.
  • ArbCom's several recent decisions and explanations which have, in summary, left all policies as meaningless. Policy is, according to ArbCom, defined as "common sense" and by how we do things. Both of these definitions of policy are nearly entirely encompassed within individual judgement rather than community judgement; this is starkly against what so much of Misplaced Pages tells us it is supposed to be; consensus.
• As one of the people I am working with said, Misplaced Pages is no longer "genuinely free and intellectually open" and may never have been so. Yet, it defines itself as such. This leaves the project in a constant quandary. The ongoing utter disrespect for new members of our community is causing quite a number of people to leave, even if they aren't the ones being disrespected. They realize that we can not long live if the project insists on casting asperions on the very lifeblood of our work. Further, they realize we can not change this with the status quo as it is; an unrepentent ArbCom that refuses to enact change, and Jimbo supporting them in such at every turn. Thus, the project to them is untenable. Their view has merit, and I am increasingly becoming of the same view.
• ArbCom must change to heal this problem. It will take some very dedicated, intelligent individuals to solve this great problem. I believe the following people are either utterly incapable of helping to heal the growing rift or are actively contributing to the problem (in alphabetical particular order, and I am not going to cite evidence for each; very time consuming): Aranda56, Fred Bauder, Golbez, Kelly Martin, Ilyanep, Jayjg, Jdforrester (James F.), Luigi30, NSLE, Snowspinner, Tony Sidaway. Were David Gerard running, I would vote against him for abuse of checkuser priviledges. But, he's not. Nevertheless, I fully expect David Gerard to be re-appointed to ArbCom by Jimbo at some point. There may be others that I will vote against on the same grounds as above. I haven't completed my analysis yet on a number of candidates.
• The only candidates on your list that I have reviewed to some extent are Mindspillage and Nandesuka. Mindspillage I am leaning somewhat in favor of based on the evidence I have seen of recent. But, I have to say I have a gut feeling this might not be a good choice, but I have nothing to support that feeling right now. I will most likely vote in favor of Nandesuka. I think he will do a great deal towards solving the problem. Hope this helps, --Durin 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

new user

Hey man I want to bcom an administrator,so far,tedcheong has helped me,can you help me too,while I domy edits smalltime. Setworker 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hi. Before setting about to request adminship, we will need to get to know you, you will need to show to the Misplaced Pages community who you are. A reasonable amount of experience is usually looked for, something like 2000 edits and 3 months of experience is usually enough for most people. During this time you should show some well rounded contributions, and act in a way which makes people like you rather than hate you (being civil is really important). Good luck! Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Setworker here,I changed my name. Please give me messages on my user talk page if required.

How do you block a frequently vandalized page?

My user page

Hi. Thanks for the offer. I think I'll take you up on it -- particularly since the admins seem incapable of getting their act together as a body. Since I don't know for sure what has and hasn't been done since I last looked at it, I'll simply revert it to one of my earlier versions. When you get around to the page, look for my last version and, if necessary, revert to it. And then please protect. Thanks much. Regards/peace. :) deeceevoice 17:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Still can't edit my user page -- this time because of collateral damage. Another user using the same I.P. address my ISP has randomly assigned me when I access my page. (Happens all the time.) So, if you wouldn't mind, please revert to my latest edit and then block. Thanks much. deeceevoice 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf 10:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

Ignore All Rules

Greetings! I've just read your essay on Ignoring All Rules. Very well stated: my views are slightly more liberal than yours (I am Chaotic Good, after all), but for the most part it seems we agree on its proper application, particularly in avoiding upsetting people unecessarily and knowing when to ignore IAR. I don't suppose you'd considered putting it on the talk page to chew on? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words! Glad to see that people actually like to read my subpages :-). Nonetheless, I have looked at your record and several of your views and opinions at various Arbcom cases and RFC cases, and I think that your views on IAR is responsible . I think that there has been a bit too much ignoring of the rules lately, to the point where it has led to shouting and bitterness, and that is what inspired me to write that essay. By the way, good luck in the election, you are the one (and I think only) "incumbent" who I supported. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I also liked your essay very much. :-) Mindspillage pointed it out to me. Kim Bruning 08:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see you asked to be relieved of admin duties. Anyway, I remember that you were a very good admin. The controversy (such as the GNAA-policy related deletion you once made) is the reason I opposed your ArbCom candidacy, but if you ask to be readminned, then I will support you without hesitation. Thanks for your comments! Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure?. I don't recall deleting any GNAA related policy. Rather, based loosly on a poll on such a policy, I remember deleting a vote to delete a vote to delete a policy to delete a vote to delete that particular poll. Or some such equally crazy chain reaction. I was backed up by at least one steward in doing so. Kim Bruning 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right it was that poll. I agree that the poll was really silly, but deleting it was still highly controversial. Nonetheless, good luck, I won't be having sleepless nights if you wind up with a seat on the ArbCom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I not sure I deleted the "kick the ass" poll. I think it got redirected by someone else. I do admit to applying it rather tangentially. :-P And thanks! :-) Kim Bruning 08:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I goofed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Mindspillage. utcursch | talk 08:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

In the elections for Arbitrator, you voted against me with the comment that you "just disagree with her stance on IAR to much to support." What is it about my stance on IAR that you object to? Kelly Martin (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I should add that my stance on IAR is almost identical to that of Mindspillage's -- and you endorsed her stance. I think you might be confused as to what my stance is. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kelly! It is not only the opinion and stance on IAR which matters, but also the actions people have made while invoking it. It was quite painful to put my name in the oppose column on your vote, you have always been nice and friendly towards me, but in your disfavor were the deletion of a number of userboxes and a subsequent "screw process" comment, actions which were more drastic than anything Mindspillage has ever done. Because so many people were upset about the userboxes disappearing and messing up their userpages, I disagreed with your position that process could be ignored in this case. I don't agree 100% with Mindspillage's views on IAR either, but she has agreed with me that IAR should not be invoked when it makes people really upset. The difference in views at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2 illustrates the difference. Of course, in your favor were the facts that you are sensible about 80-90% of the time, and that you are one heck of a hard worker. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Vote

Hi Sjakkalle,

As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating a little. I have put forth another question which I think matters before I will change my vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User 213.8.83.40

I noticed you blocked User:213.8.83.40 before for his actions; well he's at it again, adding vandalising talk pages to his agenda as well. Mainly adding the same unverifiable content repeatedly to Thumbshot and then changing other users' comments on the talk page, despite repeated requests to stop. Any help you can offer is appreciated. Peyna 13:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it. Apparantly he has stopped... but that is probably because nobody discovered his latest spamming before you spotted it. I'm blocking that IP for a week. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

He appears to have returned under another IP: User:84.228.233.237. I don't want to revert this edit because I've already gone over the limit for WP:3RR. Also see "his" comments on Talk:Thumbshot. Wrathchild (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the 3RR in this case. Spamming articles with commercial links the way as has been done here is a form of vandalism, and reverting this away is covered by the exception clause. (Note that adding external links by itself is not a form of vandalism. If somebody adds an external link in good faith, in an attempt to provide further information, and not for advertisement, then the 3RR applies when removing it.) I have checked with the Geobytes IP locater, and the two IPs are in all likelihood operated by the same person, both IPs are based in Tel Aviv. I have given User:84.228.233.237 a warning. Thanks for your help! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:167.21.254.12 has also started vandalizing again, Danish language today, and Mark Twain yesterday. Mikkel 13:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, some people just won't learn, will they? I have blocked it for a week. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The repeat vandal on Warez

This repeat vandal is User:DickyRobert it follows his mo, celebrity names... targets of warez related articles. As such you can mark any acct doing similar vandalism with the {{DickyRobert}} template. I'll go back through and clean up any wrongly applied ones. ALKIVAR™ 14:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah OK, thanks. Kelly Martin has determined two of the IPs as Univeristy of Toronto IPs. Perhaps a range block of 142.150.204.0/23 will help. I'll block them for a month, which will undo the two indef's Kelly has placed, but they can always be reblocked in a month if needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Block

How does 1 get the power to block vandals Batzarro 15:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You need to be an administrator. Such status is usually given to those who have enough experience (usually in the order of three months and about 2000 edits) and have proven themselves trustworthy, see WP:GRFA for what people look for in a candidate. Until you become an administrator we do have pages for reporting vandalism such as WP:VIP and WP:AIV (use this when you have warned a vandal up to test4 and the vandal is still vandalizing). Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Batzarro

I added a few new user boxes at religion user boxes. My user page is really messy. I dont seem to get things right. Could you check out my user page please and post yer reply on my user page.

Your userpage looks tidier than mine! Sorry, I don't know all that much about formatting userpages I'm afraid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks for asking! I'm afraid I'm not around much these days, but I did took the time to evaluate the new candidates. See my contribs for details. Yours, Radiant_>|< 17:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have put my votes in as well, and I think I agreed with your votes about 80% of the time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks from rogerd

Hi Sjakkalle- Thanks for your support on my RfA. I appreciate the kind words that you used in your comments. If I can be of any service please leave me a message --rogerd 01:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

unblock

Felbeast was wrongfullt blocked by hallmonitor please unblock me

ArbCom election

Thanks for your vote on my candidacy for ArbCom. I think I may be able to help you out of a problem. Unfortunately we can't write with a tone of voice, so I think that my stance has come across as a more blanket statement than intended. I am, by nature, someone who believes in loopholes and exceptions, and that loopholes and exceptions can't always be predicted in advance of them being discovered. Having a rigid rule would mean following it even if it was manifest that its spirit should not apply, to the detriment of the project of building an encyclopaedia. That's the reason why I endorsed 'Ignore all rules' although I think it hideously badly named.

What I don't think is that IAR should be used in a blanket way for users to take it upon themselves to say "I think this is in the interests of the project, and so I'm going to do it and damn the rest of you if you don't agree". The recent userbox debate is a case in point as the deletions were reversed almost immediately and stirred up considerable anger, making it more difficult for any coherent policy to be established - so it was also counterproductive. While I don't like userboxes which are used for advocacy, there is no way that I would ever go around mass-deleting them, not just because policy is unclear at present, but also because it's a discourteous thing to do. I hope you accept this as a slightly fuller explanation, but if you want to inquire further, then please feel free to do so. David | Talk 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your note! Changed my vote from "oppose" to "support". Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. --TimPope 13:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

International Freedom Foundation

On January 4, 2006 I created the International Freedom Foundation article. Six days later it was listed on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2006 January 10 as an alleged copyvio. Inadvertently, I had copied verbatim some small sections of another website to this article. I have since rewritten the whole article on International Freedom Foundation/Temp. If you have a nanosecond to spare, I should be grateful if you would delete the original article and substitute for it the rewritten page. Many thanks.Phase1 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have done as you suggested. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

London Buses

I had a look at the AFD debate on London Buses route 11. Is it a good idea to create one or more articles on London bus routes overall (e.g., London Buses routes 1-20, London Buses routes 21-40), linked together by an index page? --Web kai2000 12:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with articles on bus routes is that they keep changing, and sometimes cease to exist altogether and are resurrected in some completely different place. With the London bus, the routes have been a bit more static and the problem is not quite so severe. I have no real opinion if they should be merged or kept separate, I closed the AFD debate as a procedural one (consensus that article shouldn't be deleted) and mentioned merge as a possible option. Just do what you think is best, and if anyone complains you can discuss it with them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that.--Web kai2000 22:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Seth Ravin

You voted in the DRV for Seth Ravin, and I wanted to let you know that the article is again at AFD: Misplaced Pages: Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2. Thanks. -R. fiend 15:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Hmm... CEOs are tough to decide on. I think I'll stay out of the debate for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Superoffice" and Tony Sidaway

Hello. I noticed you blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours for disruptively undeleting SuperOffice. Although wheel warring is wrong, Tony had good motive: the company does in fact satisfy the notability criteria outlined on WP:CORP, specifically criterion #3: "The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indexes". SuperOffice forms part of OSE All Share index (as can be seen here - it is listed under "SUO.OL"). The three people who voted on the AfD were not informed of this by the nominator (who specifically said it did not meet any of those three criteria), and presumably did not check that fact for themselves. For this reason, Tony's undeletion of the article is appropriate, for the purposes of reopening or re-running the AfD for the article. I am therefore going to undelete the article and unblock Tony, and set in motion the procedure to re-list the article for AfD. - Mark 08:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. The only justification for an immediate undeletion is "obviously deleted out of process". THis one is far from obvious. There were AFD debates with unanimous delete consensuses. DRV can take deleted articles and review content if the reasons given to delete were all wrong. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I'm prepared to go along with this "deletion review" procedure. However, I will unblock Tony Sidaway. You did not warn him, and he has since agreed not to take it upon himself to undelete the article. Your rush to block a fellow administrator for such a paltry incident so quickly is disturbing to say the least. Even if the 3RR applied to deletions/undeletions, Tony had not violated it. - Mark 09:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Doc glasgow has already unblocked him. Tony has been warned very many times in the past not to unilaterally undelete articles, and when he now did so four times (twice on two different articles), it has gone over the top. It is disruptive ignorance of consensus, and not a 3RR violation, I blocked him for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

R107 block

Hi there, 212.219.82.35 is a school IP, the registered users R107 and me are the only constructive contributors! Feel free to block all other anonymous edits, but could you please unblock R107, and check contributions in the future. Thanks, Archer7 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is not possible (yet) to block an IP without blocking anyone, even logged in users, who try to use that IP. Do you need an unblocking of 212.219.82.35 now? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's no big emergency, if it's so difficult maybe it would be better to leave it blocked. Archer7 10:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's set to be unblocked in a few hours anyway. I'll just unblock it now and hope it goes well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't panic

The article Tally Solutions Ltd is a total bottom-up rewrite containing no material from the version that was wrongly deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we'll see what the people at WP:DRV think. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Greenpiss

Sorry I meant to revert to the one before that and I think we reverted at the same time – just a mistake, sorry again --Ehouk1 10:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Tally and SuperOffice

In blocking me, you said you thought I was making disruptive undeletions. So that you can see what I was really doing, here are the steps that I took and the steps that you took. This isn't a way of getting at you, I think what you did was okay after your beliefs and I don't hold it against you that your opinions are opposed to mine--your behavior was okay according to what you could see, or thought you could see, at the time.

• 19:19, 17 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored "Tally (accounting)"
• 19:23-19:37 various quite extensive edits, extending article.
• 20:38, 17 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored "SuperOffice"
• 20:40 Add ticker symbol and for this publicly listed company
• 02:41 told R. Fiend (who I'd noticed had deleted Tally again) that I'd produce a rewrite of the (already substantially rewritten) article.
• 03:09, 18 January 2006 Wrote a new draft of the Tally article, based on the original with a small amount of added information from my research.
• 03:09 restored history of article
• Moved it to Tally Solutions Ltd
• 03:11I also edited the article about the company's founder, Bharat Goenka, to point to the new article.
• 3:19 I invited R. Fiend to relist it on AfD if he still thought it should be deleted.
• Oops, noticed that SuperOffice had also been deleted:
• 03:24, 18 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored "SuperOffice"
• 3:25 I told R. Fiend that I'd noticed that he'd also deleted the SuperOffice article, and explained why I thought this was a very bad idea.
• 04:13 R. Fiend gave an amicable reply in which he said he'd decided to list my actions on DRV. Which is fine though not optimal, since the articles were in an undeleted state and would probably have benefited from another go at AfD.

And there it ended.

Until you deleted both of them and blocked me.

• 08:22, 18 January 2006 Sjakkalle deleted "SuperOffice" (AFD consensus: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SuperOffice, recreated and undeleted out of process)

• 08:24, 18 January 2006 Sjakkalle blocked "User:Tony Sidaway" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Disruptive undeletion of SuperOffice twice.)

• 08:36, 18 January 2006 Sjakkalle deleted "Tally Solutions Ltd" (AFD consensus: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tally (accounting), undeleted out of process)

This was four hours later. There had been no wheel war. You thought there was disruption but the deleter said he was fine with the article being undeleted during the discussion and I was fine with it too.

Still, it can be difficult to assess a situation properly, and you did your best. No hard feelings.

From the above you can see that I was making good faith efforts to write an encyclopedia. Sure, I was ignoring process, or rather short-circuiting it, but that doesn't matter one little bit. Fuck process. I didn't need a long and tedious undeletion debate to tell me what I already knew: that the process that deleted those two articles was broken, and that the way to fix it was to undelete and improve the articles. Which I promptly did. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, good to see that there are no hard feelings, and I want to let you know that I value you as an administrator and contributor.

Keep in mind that process exists for a reason. If anyone is given the right to simply ignore process and do whatever, there would be no point in having process because anyone would be allowed to ignore it if desired. Sometimes the process leads to decisions we don't agree with, but simply short-circuiting it just makes matters worse because it makes contributors feel that their opinions don't matter. It is also difficult to say to a disruptive editor that we have these policies when they can point to an admin and say "But this well-respected administrator is allowed to recreate anything he likes. Why can't I recreate the article on my teacher without being called a vandal?"

It is often said that we are here to write an encyclopedia. I agree. Most of the time I spend at Misplaced Pages goes to writing, or defending, the encyclopedia. I have initiated in the order of a hundred articles, reverted away several vandalisms and worked a bit with categorizing articles which lack it in order to improve the structure. I just prefer to write it within the confines of process and policy so that nobody will feel that I am arrogantly imposing my will on Misplaced Pages. Even within the confines of process, we are given a lot of freedom to write as we see best.

As for undeletion: It is a problem that people are too willing to make "Keep deleted, valid AFD debate" votes, thereby making it tough to reverse deletions of articles which through some fluke got a consensus against it. I don't know if there is a consensus or even a majority for it, but I think that a slight liberalization of the undeletion policy might be in order, so that we can more easily review the content as well as the process on DRV, so that the articles fate won't rest or fall on a somewhat flimsy AFD decision. A person should be able to say "Look, this deletion was decided by a number of very ill-informed voters who missed this claim to notability" without being met by dozens of "valid AFD debate"s. Another solution I have though about might be to weaken the "recreation" clause of the speedy deletion criteria so that it only applies for articles deleted by AFD process within the last year, that way a "bad" result will only be temporary.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Next time, please bring the deleted articles where AFD erred to DRV. Declare openly: "Here is the AFD debate and here is why the arguments presented are dead wrong." You never know, some people might agree with you and decide that the article really should be undeleted, and I also think there will be a dissatisfaction if we regularly let good articles with good subjects remain deleted due to inflexibility in our processes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point, honestly. It's much easier to take obviously wrong deletions down this route, and a process that has "valid AfD, keep deleted" vote cannot be said to reflect any consensus-based evaluation of the article. I think the best that Misplaced Pages can do for undeletion is to have one or two people who have a good eye for this sort of thing, and a hell of a lot of balls, and just have at it. At the worst you just end up rewriting and, eventually, backfilling the history for completeness. On letting good articles run through a known problematic process, I don't think that's right. I undelete stuff and if someone wants to they can take it through AfD. I've hardly ever lost one yet. AfD is by and large much better than DRV, though it obviously does sometimes fail. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiffle Bat

Well, thanks. Let's just make it clear that I take no pleasure in blocking good faith contributors. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Stamina

Ah, well, I work evenings, so I sleep in the early part of the day, and late night is when I have most of my free time. Everyking 10:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Block

I have just unblocked myself. Next time you decide to block an anon, READ THE IP USER TALK PAGE. That will explain whether that IP is used by heavy-use administrators who request that they are notified before blocks, so that they don't lose huge amounts of work when archiving, transferring articles between categories, or similar tasks. These talk pages will also tell you whether blocks on these addresses should be limited to short periods of time because they are used by multiple users (I know of several other users who share 202.180.83.6 as an IP). I will re-block again - for the usual one hour (not 24 hours), when I have finished the work I'm in the middle of. Grrrrr. Grutness...wha? 13:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)