Replied on article talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that edits I have submitted have been repeatedly removed. Considering this bio is already a stub, and considering that the information in the edit is as viable as anything else in the bio, I do not understand why it is consistantly removed. It would appear that the person has fans that do not agree with the new information, even though the edit reflects a catch phrase for much of the person's work, and appears regularly in commentary about his work. It is something that should be part of the bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.65.236 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to figure out why you aren't addressing this issue. Is there some existing relationship here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.66.173 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a party to your dispute. I can mediate if you want, but that requires agreement from all other parties. My involvement in this article was simply to protect it from the edit-warring that was going on. If you have a content dispute with someone, take it to the talk page of the article, work it out, and place an edit request on the talk page to make a change. Neither you nor anyone else in the dispute has attempted to discuss anything on the article talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Ziauddin Butt. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Instead of editing it yourself, you should have asked me to change it. Thanks! 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. I merely tl'd (refactored) an article tag that doesn't belong on talk pages. You should know better than to post bogus warning templates. Particularly, see WP:TPO. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your alteration broke my comment-- tl doesn't work when there are other parameters specified. There is nothing on WP:TPO that condones your behaviour, and there was nothing bogus about dropping a template on you for inappropriate refactoring of other users talk page comments. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TPO section "delinking categories". You placed a multi-category article template inappropriately on a talk page. I simply de-linked them. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you broke the markup. The way WP:TPO wants you to de-link categories is to put a ':' in front of them. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some templates automatically categorize things. The only way to de-link the categories in that case is to de-link the template. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how can i upload A logo for Syrian Football clup like Al-Karamah SC so which Licensing i should put ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo yaser (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click on "Upload file". In the list where you select the image type, click on "It is the logo of an organization". Currently that link doesn't seem to be working, but you'd go from there. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! i saw you blocked user Moscowrussia for what appears to be an edit war. User Moscowrussia is using highly reliable sources i.e. - daily Israeli newspapers Globes and YNET for contributing material here. I am kindly requesting that this page becomes Locked and Fully protected and that user Jonathanwallace is banned from further editing. Santiro (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... who are you? A new account that just appeared after Moscowrussia was blocked? The fact is that Moscowrussia violated WP:3RR and Jonathanwallace did not. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I said on Editors' Assistance this article needs a lot of attention and is outside my area of primary interest. I was trying to help out. I'm not inclined to make any more edits, but suggest someone take a look at WP:BLP issues over there, as assertions about the criminality of living people are constantly being sourced to sources such as PR Newswire and foreign language web sites that may need evaluation to determine if they are WP:RS.Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the grounds for which user moscowrussia was temp blocked WP:3RR but we should use more discretion in understanding background here before applying WP:3RR. As user Santiro has clearly stated and I kindly repeat his / her request: "User Moscowrussia is using highly reliable sources i.e. - daily Israeli newspapers Globes and YNET for contributing material here. I am kindly requesting that this page becomes Locked and Fully protected and that user Jonathanwallace is banned from further editing." As PRNewswire is no longer being used as a source and is not subject of a RS dispute but rather the largest domestic daily in Israel - YNET - and the established daily Israeli business newspaper - Globes - are now being used as RS. We kindly ask all adm to please review these respected medias articles in Wiki (not to be defined as foreign language Web sites - that is discrimination) and make every effort to fully protect the article of Michael Cherney from further vandalism. Thank you. internationalcriminallaw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Again, who are you? Yet another single purpose account that magically appears right after Santiro was blocked. Oh, and the Michael Cherney article is now fully protected as requested. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i'm anonymous but that does not mean I am unconstructive. They have created groupings for the peoples of kenya that the kenyan government throughout its history has NEVER used and then the editors complain when I create consistency. Some of the editors have acted as though they "own the page" (i.e. Midday express) and have refused to discuss the issue on the talk page. I request arbitration, not semi-protection, especially at this point. Please note the talk page: I have continuously recommended returning to tribal classifications used by the kenyan government and have been denied. I have attempted to include new census information from 2009 but have been denied. Overall it seems there is little interest in accurately representing the demographics of kenya (please see how the luo tribe, kenya's third largest was entirely missing until I edited it, while smaller tribes were thoroughly discussed, including their history and past status) and more in pushing ethno-linguistic groupings that are not relevant to the kenyan context. Midday express has been blocked repeatedly in wikipedia for their baiting editors and unconstructive edits, so please thoroughly review the talk page and un-protect, or revert to an earlier stage when there was consensus (when it was by tribal groupings). Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.74.249 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles get protected when edit-warring is observed. Edit warring was taking place on Demographics of Kenya so I protected it. In particular, I observed few constructive anonymous edits in the article history, and also that multiple editors had reverted you already (including your removal of sourced text), so semi-protection seemed best.

The place request changes to a protected article is on the article talk page. If you have a dispute with one other editor, try Wikipedia:Third opinion as a first step. If you want to include material that contradicts what the cited sources say, you need to propose your own sources. Editors have not refused to discuss the issue on the talk page. Middayexpress has replied to you. Please continue the discussion there. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the RFPP request: I had already blocked 67.85.168.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for two weeks. The IP doesn't seem to hop, and it's been chronically disruptive. You may want to reconsider the protection.—Kww(talk) 00:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually noticed you blocking that address before I protected that article, and pondered whether I should protect the article at all. Examining the edit history of Tina Turner, I saw no constructive edits from new or anonymous users for the past month. Generally I'm inclined to semi-protect an article for as long as it appears the disruption has been going on, so it seemed 3 weeks was a good period. I will not object, however, if you decide to reduce that duration to something less. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No argument from me. Just wanted to make sure you had weighed all the facts in your decision.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely concerned that you consider that not all of User:Sculptor Dame maintenance template additions were incorrect. Please indicate which ones you think are correct? Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking over the edit history of Sculptor Dame now, reverting where needed. There are still a couple articles I am uncertain of because of broken reference links, or references to shopping sites: John Maltby and Gordon Baldwin. In any case, I still believe that Sculptor Dame needs some education rather than blocking. I have warned the user. If it happens again let me know and I will block. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey admin guy, there's a user named User:Logical Cowboy who's using Twinkle like a fire hose, and ruining the geraniums. He's tagging everything that exists for non-notability. Go to Robin Lakoff. Look down at Selected writings by Lakoff. Use Google scholar and Google books on the name.. and remember that Google scholar will vastly undercount, because the name will appear as Lakoff (1975) rathr than "Robin Lakoff"... Ahem. Ahem. Canst thou speak with this strapping young lad, this paragon of youthful innocence, and ask him to cease and desist with the twinkling? Tks. Locke'sGhost 05:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amatulic, nice to meet you. I find comments about how old I am to be a little weird. No one has that information here. I suggested that Locke's Ghost should read WP:PERSONAL and stick to the articles rather than personal comments. Anyway, with regard to Robin Lakoff, what I did was note that the article did not establish notability according to WP:PROF. Locke's Ghost deleted the tag without actually establishing notability. Whether I use Twinkle or Huggle or emacs seems besides the point. Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm scratching my head wondering why I'm suddenly in the middle of this dispute.

In any case, Lock'sGhost, whether or not the subject of an article is notable in the real world isn't the issue. What matters more is whether the article about the subject adequately establishes notability. If Google searches turn up sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, why, then, are they not referenced in the article somehow? Oh, and Logical Cowboy is correct: comment on content, not the contributor. Speculating about someone's personal life isn't appropriate behavior here.

And Logical Cowboy, I am not a fan of automated tools. I have seen too much disruption arising from their mis-use. Do you see an article for which you have notability concerns? WP:SOFIXIT. That's more constructive than hit-and-run tagging. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good luck with your wonderful and extremely valuable twinkle pursuits. Locke'sGhost 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can you please explain how you felt this article qualified under A7 when evidence was present and couple to the fact far less notable bands still have a page on wikipedia when they clearly do meet category for speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaro632 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BAND for criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Hopes Abandoned did not appear to meet any of the criteria, and no reliable sources were provided as evidence. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFF exists isn't a reason to keep an article. If other less notable bands have articles, they should be deleted too. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mean to seem fatuos or arrogant but i would ask what expertise do you have in the music industry, in particular the Australian industry? i ask as Hopes Abandoned satisfy the criteria listed under Nos. 1,2,4,9,10 and 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaro632 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise is not required, only knowledge of WP:BAND, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Reliable sources. The Hopes Abandoned article contained zero verifiable, reliable sources as evidence that any WP:BAND criteria are met. Let's look at your claims:

Criterion 1: No evidence was given that the band been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent of the band.

Criterion 2: No reference was given to verify claim of being on a country's national chart. http://www.mp3.com.au/Charts/Artists/Punk does show the band as a #1 punk band, but so what? mp3.com.au is a free service dedicated to helping unsigned artists promote their music — in essence, a repository of non-notable bands.

Criterion 4: No evidence was given of coverage of a national concert tour was provided in the article.

Criterion 9: There was no mention of any competition in the article.

Criterion 10: The article mentioned inclusion in Triple J Hottest 100 of 2010; however I could find no evidence of the credibility of this claim. The only links shown by Google that mention Hopes Abandoned and Triple J Hottest 100 are all unreliable sources such as Facebook; nothing on the official source abc.com.au which hosts the Triple J Hottest 100 information. I did search, but I couldn't find it.

Criterion 11: The article mentioned nothing about the band having been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Therefore, the article was deleted. The fact that the article has been deleted three times now suggests an attempt to promote this band rather than contribute to the encyclopedia.

If I restore the article, it would be deleted again by someone else, or at the very least deleted through the WP:AFD process. If you want to write an article on this band, I suggest you start it in your own user space where it won't be deleted. Just create User:Monaro632/Hopes Abandoned and go from there, and be sure to provide verifiable and reliable sources to back up the WP:BAND criteria before moving the article into main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, in relation to the "promotion" of the band, i am not associated not affiliated with the band in any way, shape or form, as i feel you were trying to insinuate, also stating expertise is not required in a subject to allow it to be reviewed for deletion is i feel a major policy flaw by Wikipedia, it would be exactly the same as asking me to verify and decide upon an article on a large hadron collider for instance, a subject of which i have very little knowledge, would it not be proper to have experts in the particular field review articles of that field?

I know nothing of any other attempts to start such a page, when was this? also if there have been three attempts would you not think this would suggest some notability if people are repeatedly trying to start a wiki on them?

the article stated they were nominated for the Hottest 100, not that they were included in the final listing, the band have also been in rotation on the Triple J radio network.

Could you assist or offer some guidance as to how the article could be correctly formatted so as not to be deleted in future? other than what has already been posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaro632 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prior incarnations of this article, it turns out, were not recent. I apologize for the insinuation.

Wikipedia articles are judged according to compliance with published policies and guidelines. The fact that this article failed to meet the criteria is hardly a flaw in Wikipedia policies, it's a flaw in the article. It takes at least two editors to delete an article such as yours: the one who judged it deletable, and the admin (me) who had to agree that it was deletable. My analysis above should clearly demonstrate that I did proper due diligence. I am fairly sure the editor who proposed it for deletion conducted a similar review and found no reliable sources that could establish notability.

Expertise is not required because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for experts. ANYONE should be able to verify the claims made in an article. If that is not possible to do, if an article must rest on expert judgment, then out it goes.

I am happy to assist. The formatting (layout, sectioning, etc.) of the article was not a problem. The major problem was that no verifiable, reliable sources were provided to back up any claims of notability of the band. Be sure to include those, you should be fine. Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability will tell you more than you want to know about what are good and poor sources. Wikipedia:Citing sources will tell you how to cite them. Just create the article in your own user space as I suggested, and when you think it's up to the point where anyone can verify the notability claims from the sources you provide, let me know and I'll be happy to look at it. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, i shall contact you again once i have improved the article to standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaro632 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the deleted article to User:Monaro632/Hopes Abandoned for you to work on. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request an explanation about Debate Team (band) deleted for the same reason even though they just recently as of January 24th, 2011 released their first EP on iTunes. Furthermore, the band is made up of very well known artists including Bob Morris from the Hush Sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.65.235 (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was deleted in error since the band does meet WP:BAND criterion #6. The article has been restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly I am amazed that you are in any doubt about this being a violation. The name plus the linkspamming, what more do you want? – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the box at the top of the page WP:UAA. It's better to block on the larger problem. The name isn't a violation, in my reading of Wikipedia:Username policy. Spamming is a violation, and the user has been warned. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I visit WP:UAA enough to know what the box says, thank you. What I don't understand is how you can say this is not a blatant u/n violation, so we will have to agree to differ on that one. – ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't blatant, it's borderline. It would be blatant if the username matched the blog name. Believe me, I was looking for a reason to block everything about that user, if you read my first comment. Further examination revealed that blocking isn't justified... yet. Another attempt at spam and I'll certainly do so. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a recent AN3 decision you made has been brought to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AN3_review_requested. --B (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- which I was just about to tell you. --JN466 04:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to understand why we turn away editors who don't conform to our standards rather than working with them.

You recently blocked User:Cmeditorial for editing for promotional purposes. While in some sense that may be true (as they have only made it to editing one article and asking for help with it, and it is an article about an org they are related to), in another sense they have been slowly learning how Wikipdia works over many months, developing an article first in their userspace, and then asking nicely on AFC and on the article's talk page and EAR for guidance. They clearly want to learn how to be good editors.

An unkind talkpage message and indef block can turn away a spammer, but can also turn away a potential good editor. (In this case, a whole slew of them, since the group in question is a network of university student journalists.) ArcAngel's comment to them before yours seemed sufficient to me to encourage them to conform with Wikiepdia policies. Were you drawn to the user because of ArcAngel's categorization, or because of their post on EAR? Was ArcAngel's comment too lenient?

How do you see the current intent the username policy? Is it to make those who violate it unwelcome / to discourage them from returning? If so, perhaps the policy can be reworded to make that more clear. If not, can we correct inappropriate names in a way that encourages newbies to do things better or to find a different entrypoint to editing? The current canonical "you've been indefblocked!" template mentions that it is possible to edit again, but almost as an afterthought; the reader may well already have quit the site.

This seems relatively harsh to me. Anyone who clearly indicates their affiliation in their username is trying to be transparent and to do the right thing, which means they are potential good editors -- far more adaptable than borderline trolls, for whom we show legendary patience.

I would welcome your thoughts on these matters. –SJ+ 11:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also undeleted College Magazine, as I see no reason to speedy it (author COI not being a reason to delete in itself). Feel free to request deletion, though it seems notable to me by the standards of student magazines. –SJ+ 11:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My blocking of Cmeditorial was based on the account seeming to be operated by a group of people, and representing a group of people, rather than an individual. That alone would have resulted in a softerblock, which includes an invitation to create another account. However, the fact that the account was used to write a promotional article caused me to escalate the block to spamusername.

I don't remember how this account came to my attention. I regularly patrol WP:UAA so it could have been there, but I also run across promotional accounts on my own.

I see the intent of the username policy as encouraging individuals to engage in non-promotional editing. I have no problem with someone disclosing their affiliation in a username that is clearly an individual's name (like a real name with company initials appended, or something similar). In those cases I have a pretty good track record of declining block requests I find on WP:UAA.

My speedy deletion of College Magazine is explained in my rationale: Notability not established and uses only primary sources. I see now that it makes a claim of notability (badly sourced) so I agree that an A7 speedy was wrong. Good catch. I decline a lot of CSD A7 tags because I see a claim of notability. I don't know how I missed the one that's currently in the article.

Some new accounts should be taught. Others should be told to leave. Still others should be told to leave and prevented from returning. In review, I agree that this might be a more borderline case. I have no objection if you decide to unblock. I will do so if you ask. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amatulić, thank you for elaborating. I agree about the three categories, and wonder where different groups draw those lines. (And I think we should clarify both where we intend to ask people to leave and where we intend to retrain and recruit them -- currently too many standard templates are passive-aggressive or send mixed messages.) People taking up protector and vandalfighter roles may think about this more than anyone, and so have the clearest / most consistent interpretations; welcomers and editor-helpers may not, and may not follow editors through their first 50 edits. We have mechanisms for watching pages, but none for watching users, or users's blocklogs, or deletion logs for pages users are working on; so it's much easier to catch and respond to RC than it is to respond to the latest admin actions taken against a cadre of newbies you were mentoring.

I currently am more sensitive than usual about this, as I am working with data on the proportion of readers who are 'locked out' (perhaps 50% of readers never see an edit tab due to semi-protection; less than 15% of editors remain active after 2 months of editing, down from 45% a few years ago; newbies tagged as spammers often leave without ever understanding why; it's not unusual to be blocked without malicious or unkind behavior; it's hard to challenge deletions because we've chosen deletion over page blanking.) Since you are quite thoughtful about how you interact with other editors and review their work, I am particularly glad for your input. –SJ+ 08:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your efforts. I agree, many users who may seem to want to use Wikipedia as an advertising channel can be educated to the point where they are productive. One I have in mind started out here as a WP:SPA with a WP:COI, and remained active that way for a year or so. Then he began contributing elsewhere, and now he's an administrator, and since then I haven't seen him touch his COI topic. It took a couple years for him to "get" the bigger picture concerning what Wikipedia is all about. If that's any example (just one data point), the year or two it took suggests the difficulty of the task in turning around other COI editors.

I have mixed feelings about welcome message templates. To me, they give the appearance of hit-and-run posting. I haven't seen one yet that was appropriate for an IP address, and yet a lot of IP addresses get tagged with welcome messages as if the IP will be an individual long-term established editor.

It's no secret in the business world that Wikipedia is often among the first hits that turn up in a Google search for any topic. I know from my personal interactions with business professionals that Wikipedia is viewed as a promotion channel, a way for a non-notable company or organization to get their name at the top of a Google search if they can't manage to do it on their own. There are even seminars you can attend on how to do this without being detected. These people already have their mind made up about what Wikipedia is for, they appear here for a specific purpose, and have no interest in contributing anything other than their promotion. Some of these accounts I've found are PR companies whose job it is to write promotional Wikipedia articles for their clients. Clear and obvious appearances of such editors should be shown no mercy, and I show them none.

But I'll be the first to admit that a battleground mindset can result in hasty administrative actions when it comes to borderline cases. I'd like to think that my blocking of CMeditor was based on sound reasoning, but I admit my deletion of the article was hasty, so my own behavior is borderline in this case. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superb! I agree wholeheartedly with the granting of this award. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you. This is a pleasant surprise to see when logging in this morning. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When removing <ref>s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind (e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomie (talk • contribs)

I spent all day yesterday removing links from a few hundred articles. I took care to remove orphaned references too, but given the number of articles I'm not surprised I missed some here and there. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was you who misread that diff. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. You restored an unreferenced paragraph (which you have now deleted), and you removed (again) a section that contained two references. If anything, that should have been paired down, not deleted altogether. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to sort it out. My entire edits were blind-reverted, and many improvements that had nothing to do with removal were undone. Yworo (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I sorted it out. I just manually re-inserted a couple of paragraphs you deleted that had citations, but left out a lot of other unsourced text that you removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helped. One of the citations only covered a single sentence, the other kind of glossed over that it was not a general finding, but rather opinions expressed in a single research paper. Yworo (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it from there. I'll point out that research papers don't generally publish "opinions" but rather observations or results that any other researchers can verify. A single peer-reviewed research paper is a reliable source. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's not a reliable source. As far as I can tell, the "opinion" portion of the added text was synthesis on the part of a Wikipedia editor, so I've removed one sentence to make it clear what observations and results were actually reported. Yworo (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to merge these talk pages to Wikipedia:Blocked external links and subpages. The main reason is to remove the implication of "spam" and provide a somewhat more visible and centralized location, and a slightly more sane process. I am contacting you because you are or have been involved with spam blacklisting in the past. Please post any comments you may have at Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the SOCR disambiguation page should point directly to the Statistics_Online_Computational_Resource, as the other SOC-R entry seems to not be of sufficient notoriety (no Wikipedia page and little can be found online about it that may justify a disambiguation page? The Statistics_Online_Computational_Resource appears to be the primary topic for SOCR and according to this Wikipedia policy probably justifies the link to the main SOCR acronym. Thanks. 128.97.129.33 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on your perspective. If you're in the military, SOCR is a type of special ops boat. The term doesn't have its own article, but the acronym does appear (undefined) in articles about special operations. Google searches turn up hits on SOC-R boats in the first page of results.

I have expanded the list of acronyms with others that may eventually warrant articles.

You are correct, though. I'll make the appropriate changes. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion at Talk:Independent Payment Advisory Board may not be as fruitful enough. Could you perhaps take a look, and offer a recommendation (perhaps to take an issue up at an appropriate noticeboard), as you protected the page? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont disagree with your blocking it as promotional but its only edit was to remove an obvious BLP violation and the user who reported it as promo-username restored the violation. Would you mine reinforcing the WP:DOLT essay to Teapotgeorge? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the reminder. Because that edit was constructive, I didn't hard block EurosportManagement, but gave him a softer block that allows him to create another account from the same IP address. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read what EurosportManagement (talk · contribs) removed from James Haskell's article. The content was correctly referenced, no one has threatened legal action as far as I'm aware and I was under the impression that Wikipedia wasn't censored? I'm not sure why it is a BLP violation? Regards.Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't censored, true. However, there are sensitivities to be aware of when dealing with a biography of a real living person, because such biographies lead to real legal threats against the Wikimedia Foundation. The article may be fine with or without that bit (fine with it because it's properly referenced, and fine without it because it's an irrelevant detail for a biography). Did you read the essay Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have read it, it states "Unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." which I entirely agree with, but the content you are removing is very reliably referenced and no one is questioning that it happened and other connected articles also mention it. I am not about to edit war over it, someone else has restored it in any case.RegardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that too. I'm fine with it either way. Note that *I* have removed nothing from that article. All I did was block someone who did. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Kind regardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 17:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to notice you commented at Talk:List of disputed supercentenarian claimants#Notability. There is a case open at WP:AE#NickOrnstein. I would welcome any comment you can make, either in the enforcement request or on my talk page, as to what you think is going on. (Or tell us what to do in the Result section). It would be embarrassing if the usual AE admins are baffled by an enforcement only a few weeks after the case closes; we should have some idea of what to do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you take a look at Jules Dervaes. I read "Urban farming family who trademarked "Urban Homesteading" accused of plagiarism" [14] and checked Wikipedia to see what exits on the subject. There was nothing on the page concerning the controversy brought up in the article, then I checked the page edit history and noticed that someone or some number of people had removed anything that was controversial from the article, they also removed most of the external links. Now there may be valid reasons for doing so, but there is nothing in the edit history that would suggest such a reason. Also the editors who removed the material seem to exist solely to edit this page. I restored the material to the page. It looks as though it might need some level of protection, but what level and for how long, etc I am not sure. Any input would be welcome. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the page to my watch list. For now, let's wait. Semi-protection won't work because the disruptive editors are using well-enough-established accounts. If edit-warring commences, disruptive editors can be blocked after being warned appropriately to take the dispute to the talk page. If a block or two isn't effective, the page can be fully protected. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the input,and glad to have another pair of eyes looking things over. Brimba (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! User:Sandstein has proposed a new approach to Arbitration Enforcement, which has been discussed on his talk page [15] and [16]. I would be interested to know your opinion, based on your substantial experience. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned in this diff at the RfE against NickOrnstein, there has been consensus in the RSN on Oldest People (now archived) in which I also supported that Yahoo Groups citations that refers to specific messages in the group (for instance, http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/16492) is not acceptable for article mainspace. For project or talk pages, it seems like the consensus was that "as long as it's not carried over to article mainspace, then that's okay until a better citation can be found".

Before the RfE against NickOrnstein, I had provided my line of thinking here that "Yahoo Groups WOP is a closed membership. I do understand the logic of not allowing the citation because "Mr. John Q. Public" would not be able to see the citation. I will look into those citations that had pointed to the Yahoo Group WOP, and as a member, I'll see if those messages point to an outside source for citation use." For instance, that Yahoo Group message #16492 link above -- which a non-registered member of the Yahoo Groups WOP would not see -- refers to a death of a Lettie Broome and the message includes the link to her obituary. Ironically, NickOrnstein was the one who composed that particular message on WOP. What he and everyone should do is actually use the link from the message like this, not the actual WOP message #16492 link.

That said, when you provided the WP:ELNO guideline #10 which it did say: "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." I then read the entire Wikipedia:External links page, and realized that the page seems to be providing conflicting information. Can you look at Sites requiring registration section please? There, it also repeats my thinking -- "Outside of citations, external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers."

However, the bolding of "Outside of citations" and the use of a reference note caught my attention. If you look at the reference note, it explicitly says, "This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles."

I realized I was baffled by that statement (as I am still not entirely sure what it is saying) so I decided to go here to enlist your thoughts on what that reference note meant. Again, I'm not saying I'm endorsing that Yahoo Groups (and specifically the WOP group) continue to be used as a citation itself; in fact, I still support the rationale that if everyone can't see the citation, then it's not an usable citation. Just wanted to cover all bases and see if that's why some editors are just so darned stubborn in using WOP citations (they probably don't even know about this particular reference note anyway). Thoughts? Thanks in advance, CalvinTy 13:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a contradiction. Citations to sites requiring registration are often acceptable; for example, scientific journals usually require you to be a member before you can view anything more than an article abstract. But that isn't the issue with the Yahoo WOP group. The issue is that it's a discussion forum. Citations to discussion forums are almost never acceptable. Exceptions would include an article about a particular forum, or a forum that is widely referenced or discussed by other reliable sources that meet WP:RS criteria. I don't know of any Yahoo group that would qualify as an exception.

WP:ELNO was probably not the best guidance document to reference for this situation. The correct documents would be:

• Policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources — Self-published media, such as ... group blogs, Internet forum postings ... are largely not acceptable as sources.
• Policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources — Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.
• Guideline: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online_and_paper) — Internet forum postings ... are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated....

I hope that helps clarify things. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be pointed out that reliability is a sliding scale. The most reliable sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications. The next most reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. At the very bottom of reliability are self-published sources. Self-published sources should be used with caution and sparingly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo groups are often inaccessible unless you register. In addition, they are full of copyright violations, including downloaded articles, another reason not to link to them. I belong to a number of Yahoo groups, and own or moderate several myself. I can't think of any that meet our criteria for use. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for your responses about Yahoo Groups citations. As I suspected, regardless of whether a particular Yahoo Group requires registration or not, it's the focus on the fact the Yahoo Groups are another format of a "forum", a discussion forum -- as well as the fact it would be "largely user-generated" in any case. At least, if anyone else has a further issue with the Yahoo Groups citations, we can point them here for clarification.  :-) Thanks for your time. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clean-up of the secret talkpage colourer-inner. Aren't people odd? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. I have no idea what account that person might have had previously, or what we might have done to set him off vandalizing admin talk pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made a great statement at close. With respect to your message, it was top, too bad these couldn't be seen earlier. In keeping with my own manner. I show tendency (in the absence of farce) to most often first state; All the good nice things and true observations and empathy for correctly expressing that it would not be for me and everything else being true. The only conflicting premise I would have sent back is: When you described "Dealing with conflict", your general phrasing; "is part of the job", "compatible with the job" "enjoy the job", for this emerging theme I would simply add it was never intended to hold the obligation of a "job". I nominated myself on a different platform and to use the tool in the manner I described wouldn't have with it any stress of obligation. Only that upon appropriate necessity and clarity, would I consider autonomous, otherwise I have the best mentors for the questions I would need getting started. for the most mart I could imagine some AfC actions where a mop with a broken mop handle could function. To me the issue was impeding my integrity. Trust could have prevailed, I think it was a missed opportunity, so I completed the emotional lesson, that was left to conclude, and am better for it. I have heard people refer to RfA as broken, I intend to look for was to impact the process. For sure, because of my memories going through. I have gained a perspective. With regard to fixing, RfA, I would not go through under current practice, In all honestly, however, because you viewed the position as a "job" you attached your view upon it and the stress. And if I thought "Job" I would fully agree. For my RfA it would have landed as a "Tool". and that requires AGF. A tool carries much less connotations of stress. Anyway I guess mine will try to be an advocate for positive change. and from here be seen again on Wikipedia. But yeah, looks like it might have been another long 1. My76Strat (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the term "job" in the context of "task" or "activity". Please re-read what I wrote in that context. My impression remains that you would find adminship distasteful as soon as you get embroiled in a conflict, which will inevitably happen regardless of your intent. From my own perspective, I find it to be a huge distraction from things I'd rather be doing with respect to content editing, and my time available is finite.

I recommend participating in Wikipedia:Third opinion to get a taste of trying to mediate disputes that don't involve you. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fast work you did, thanks! I'll put a redirect to International Nuclear Event Scale in its place. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I had some misgivings about speedy-deleting a page that has existed for a long time, but the present content was clearly not acceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a hard time determining whether it was spam or just advertising as I have never nominated anything for deletion before. Redirect set up and all is in order now. Hopefully the person who writes the next article reads the rules first. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you please look at the complaint again? There have been a series of lies and made up stories in the complaints, i would be thankful if you could review the complaints again on my behalf to be fair. I believe they are working together to push their own POV due to their political convictions. I have tried to given them valid reasons on various talk pages to no avail. A fair assessment at the complaint would be appericiated. Okkar (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My initial assessment was to block all parties, but after thoroughly reviewing the edit histories of the articles, I found no violations. You have a content dispute. Content disputes are not settled on the 3RR reporting page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt use 3RR to report content dispute, it was the other parties as you can see from their report. I have tried to resolve the content issues on talk page but no avail. What do you when people cheat and gang up on you? Okkar (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The forum for reporting behavioral problems that don't quite fit into the other categories (like vandalism, spamming, sockpuppetry, 3RR, etc.) is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:ANI for short. There you'll have a larger population of administrators to review the problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you please take a look at my talk page on a message left by Fletch the Mighty regarding the above two users and their suspicious activities? It somehow raise the suspicion that the user account User:Soewinhan may have been stolen. Okkar (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heyya, Im new to Wikipedia and am wondering why you have deleted my article :) I'm not sure what i have done wrong :) Thanks,

Aaron1178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron1178 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Amatulic. I note your comment here. As far as I can tell, the "new" version of this spam article is a straight repost. The creator appears to be the same editor, who is the festival's founder. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, again. Will salt if it happens a third time. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My acount was recently blocked by you in response to my edits on the article Outcasts (tv series). I do not understand why my acount was blocked yet other users involved (ie:Xeworlebi) were not! I was not adding any incorrect, bias or inapropriate material but my edit kept on being deleated and I was blocked for it even though I was reverting the article because in my opinion the user Xeworlebi did not have a reason for deleating my edit and he was therefore, in my opinion, vandilising my edit. Please could you let me know why I was blocked so I don't make any mistakes I may have made again. Oddbodz (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree with your declining of my edit warring report as there was alot of edits since the report. However alot of edit waring has been happing at List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel so if you could sift through it and block the edit warriors that would be great :) STATic message me! 21:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking User: WWEJobber the most avid warrior would probably have been a better choice then protecting the page. As he's doing all the damage with at least 5 editors reverting his vandalism in the last month with him keep doing the same thing. STATic message me! 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWeJobber's edits were not vandalism, and all sides were making reasoned arguments in the edit summaries. However, nobody was discussing the dispute on the talk page, as should be happening. Protecting the page is the only appropriate solution in this case. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor, when that page gets unprotected could you semi it as the IP vandalism is just unnesasary when we already get vandalism from users. STATic message me! 02:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to return it to indefinite semi protection it had before this started instead of just a week long protection. STATic message me! 05:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do that but I'd like to see what sort of anonymous edits appear. There were some seemingly constructive ones in recent history, and the unconstructive ones appeared to be from an edit-warrior who forgot to log in. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I the only one to be warned? When other people are using sources that are not verifiable, and with the offical website not reporting it. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is? Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not logged in all the time, and right now it's working hours.

At the time I warned you, I saw three reverts in the edit history. Those reverting you didn't have 3 reverts. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the content. See WP:3RR. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this works but trying to contact you anyway. I am unsure why you have removed the external links I added last night to redirect wikipedia users to thatcrazyfrenchwoman.com. As you would have seen, had you visited the site, this is not spam whatsoever. Isabelle Legeron MW is a HIGHLY respected wine expert - one of only 280 Masters of Wine in the whole world AND the only french woman. links through to her page SHOULD be present on article entries on natural wine / organic wine / biodynamic wine. What exactly gives you the right to decide otherwise? Who are you? Please clarify. Thanks for your help. Tiffany Boeuve (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)User:Tiffany Parminter[reply]

Tiffany, thank you for contacting me. Here is why I removed the links:

• The user who added them added a similar link multiple articles, suggesting a pattern of spamming. If an editor's only contributions to Wikipedia are to add external links, then it's highly likely that the editor's purpose is promotional. Promotion is prohibited, especially if the editor has a conflict of interest. Repeated violations will result in the site being blacklisted Wikipedia-wide, preventing anyone from linking to it.
• Upon examining this site, it appeared to be a self-published blog, and blogs are generally not acceptable as external links. There are exceptions, such as if the content is written by an expert in the field. But even then, the links should enhance the information in the article some way, and I didn't see that being the case.
• The nature of the way the links were added suggested a conflict of interest on the part of the editor who added them. Editors with a conflict of interest should never add their own links to articles. Instead, the editor should propose the addition on the article talk page and let the community decide.

You ask, what exactly gives me the right to remove them? Well, any editor has the right to remove anything judged to be detrimental to the project. We also have policies and guidelines. See Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I have followed up at the Wikipedia Wine Project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Thatcrazyfrenchwoman.com to get the community's views on this site. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has only 898 prose characters of the 1500 required. Judging by your notation, it may be difficult to further expand it. The reviewer was also concerned about the species. Good luck. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on Mandarax's comment. From what I can find there doesn't seem to be wolf spider species called the "Up-island spider" or "hearse-house spider". Looking at the information included in the article from your source it seems to be a possible local folk tale? of the region. The largest wolf spider species in the US, Hogna carolinensis, only gets to 22-35 mm in length, while the reported size for the "Up-island spider" is in the range of 230mm. This plus the lack of any hits for either name on the web are concerning. Did the Working Waterfront article provide a genus or species name to go with the vernacular names?--Kevmin § 07:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the article talk page. I wasn't aware of a word count requirement. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this (asking since you were the protecting admin). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now semi-protected. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am REALLY new to Wikipedia....so please excuse if this is totally the wrong way to do this post. I just wanted to let you know I sent an email....which I did BEFORE I saw your message to not send email unless we had had prior communication. Sorry about that.

MotherlindaMotherlinda (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have replied by email. Oh, and generally one posts at the bottom of people's talk page, to maintain the chronology of comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editors weren't vandalising the article, it was a content dispute as they were adding sourced content, thus full protection is appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was correcting myself as you posted this message. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add a {{Pp-dispute}} to the page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, sure. I never found those tags useful, and felt that adding them should be the job of a bot. But I'll add it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if you use WP:TW to make protections it does it automatically. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eraserhead1 is mistaken. This is no content dispute. It is 1 user who uses multiple IPs to push for a POV, for which did found no support on the talkpage, besides himself in the guise of changing IPs. just as an example the last five that are in favor of adding the al-Qaeda piece:

• 90.128.116.236 - DE-TELE2-NET3
• 83.189.90.131 - DE-TELE2-NET2
• 213.101.230.37 - DE-TELE2
• 83.189.94.84 - DE-TELE2-NET2
• 83.181.93.81 - DE-TELE2-NET2

and so on and on; the guy just switches IP every 20 min or so, to make it look like there is a debate! while actually it is just him vs. everybody else. if you read the article in question [17] it nowhere says al-Qaeda supports the rebels. Or can you find that line in there somewhere?? there was ample discussion for two days at Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Al-Qaeda.2C_LIFG_and_mercenaries and Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Al-Qaeda_and_Nato_are_co-beligrents.3F.21, to explain to him that if some men out of a group of 25, who went to Iraq to fight and are now fighting with the rebels in Libya this does not mean that al-Qaeda is a co-belligerent; especially as ALL new sources never mention that or outright dispute that. Just while you protected the article two other editors tried to reason with him [18] [19], but he just switched IP again and has shown himself once more just out to disrupt and provoke [20]. The whole day I and other editors have removed this claim, as the consensus on the talk page is NOT to add it as it is OR not substantiated by a source, however the guy behind the IP just comes back under different IP and adds it again. and again and again... to sum it up: no content dispute, but an user disrupting the editing process with a OR, dubious POV, IP hoping and no will do argue; therefore please change from full-protection to semi-protection. noclador (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Noclador. We should be able to edit the article, it's about current events after all. If you just prevent IPs from editing the article, the problem will cease to exist, or become manageable. Cheers, Alfons Åberg (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interfering here once again but given the IP editor has discussed it further on the talk page and come to a compromise and the registered user above has withdrawn from the discussion I think unprotection would be reasonable now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. I'm not inclined to take someone at their word that they're leaving in a huff.

You want unprotection or semi? I can't tell from the comments above. And perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see a compromise from the IP on the talk page.

I suggest that somebody make an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page for a consensus-based change to the article. If that happens instead of blustering, then I'll consider unprotection. Alternately, you can post an unprotection request at WP:RFPP to see if another admin will agree to it. Right now, I see flaring tempers, which doesn't fill me with confidence that disruption won't resume. I'll shorten it to 3 days for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a current event, gets a lot of attention from various WP authors and should not be protected. --Edoe (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this protection is very ill-considered. The state of affairs three days from now will definitely be radically different from now, and the article will have suffered, becoming inaccurate under protection in the meantime. Protection is a blunt instrument which targets everyone equally and indiscriminately. Under certain circumstances, it can make sense. But this case of a very visible article on a topic of international import, which is constantly changing and being edited by many well-behaved editors, is almost the definition of when targeted blocks of the misbehaved would cause less damage to the project than protection. Would you consider that instead? Dominic·t 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see my comment above.

I saw an edit war going on. In a content dispute, full protection is an appropriate response. Full protection doesn't prevent improvements from being made to the article, but so far nobody has made any editprotected requests. I see no discussion on the talk page that suggests the warring won't continue. I see no constructive edit requests made in an attempt to improve the article while protected. All I am seeing are complaints.

If it makes you feel better, I don't intend to let the protection go on for three days. However, unless another admin intervenes, I fully intend to leave it protected for a few hours to give warring editors a chance to cool off.

If you want to make an improvement, then suggest one. That's what the {{editprotected}} template is for. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for an edit to be made to the article, and don't intend to ever edit it myself. I was expecting a more serious response from you. It hardly sounds like you've read what I wrote, and telling me "Again," after my first post is a bit nonsensical. I know that there has been warring. I am suggesting that if it is to be addressed, it ought to be by blocking the edit warring parties, rather than cutting off all editing to the highly visibly article on a fast-moving current event. And, er, that's especially true if there is not any talk page discussion that indicates the warriors are likely to reform; you seem to have it backwards. You're creating a barrier to editing by requiring people to edit the talk page and use a template they may be unfamiliar with. In my opinion, your action (especially if it stands) has done more harm to the project than the bout of edit warring did. And, with regard to "unless another admin intervenes," you are seriously tempting me there to do so, but you'll have to excuse my impudence in thinking that it would be more respectful to actually talk to you about my disagreement first. Dominic·t 01:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used "again" because it seemed clear you didn't read my comments in the section preceding yours. Apologies if that seemed off-putting.

I am quite serious, and it is regrettable that you cannot take my response seriously. I do appreciate the effort you are making to engage in discussion, however.

The warriors had not reached the threshold required for a block, and there were too many of them.

You are welcome to your opinion. I am letting the protection stand for a few hours. This does no "harm" to the project. People don't go to Wikipedia as a primary source of news. Your argument about unfamiliar templates makes no sense; the instructions for using the template are right at the top of the protected article in big, bold letters, and I see many newbies and anonymous IPs using editprotected templates on other protected articles.

If you object, and can't wait for the article to be unprotected, you are welcome to request unprotection at WP:RFPP. I will not object if another administrator overrides my decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand you here. You're the one that decided to take this action, and you've been nothing but flippant and dismissive about objections to it since. This is a wiki. If you think that protecting a high-profile page isn't harmful, or that all the new editors who will land there will automatically know how to use templates on talk pages, then, well, I am flabbergasted. These are basic principles. I can see it was hardly worth my time to try to negotiate with you. Dominic·t 05:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why you wish to engage in argument when you have the capability to unprotect the article yourself. It is unfortunate that you consider disagreement with your arguments as flippant and dismissive. And yes, it is pointless to assume that I must respond instantly demands to move my deadline for unprotection by a few minutes. I have stated I have no objection to another admin overriding me, as you have done.

The protection status does not prevent improvements from being made. I am amazed that you regard other editors as too stupid to use a template or request a change on a talk page, when my own observation in other protected articles clearly show that new editors are fully capable of doing this. Please assume good faith which you are failing to do, not only for me, but for everyone else. As I mentioned earlier, I have let it stand for a few hours, I intended to change it just now, but noticed you have already done so. That's perfectly fine with me, I have no objection. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fyi. When logging Blacklist items, try to avoid adding "#:" in front of single entries. Ie;[21][22][23]. Adding "#:" hides the item on the spamlist search. I've corrected those. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By coincidence, I was just re-reading the blacklisting guideline before you posted this message, and I realized I had been logging entries incorrectly. Thanks for fixing them. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some edit-warring over flag icons on a couple of lists of living centenarians. It's led me to make a proposal to amend the MOS that is gathering consensus. If you could read the discussions that led to the proposal, all of which are linked on the MOS talk page I've linked above here, I'd appreciate it. If my proposal is adopted, as seems likely, I fear implementation of the improved WP:FLAGBIO will cause sparks to fly in the longevity suite of articles. David in DC (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a long debate. I just finished reading the background discussion and your proposal, and I support it. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know you've explicily stated that your participation in longevity-related articles is limited to enforcement of the ArbCom decision. It's my hope that you'll keep an eye on the MOSFLAG discussion(s) and any edits after the MOSFLAG proposal is decided. I could be wrong, WP:CRYSTAL but I think implementing change, if my proposal is adopted, may lead to activity prohibited in the ArbCom decision. David in DC (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And so it begins. How broadly do you suppose "broadly interpreted" should be interpreted? David in DC (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is it too early to list the site on WP:BLACK? Or is that a last resort if the IP comes back from block and adds the links again? CTJF83 21:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a last resort. However, you can always create a request. Sites don't get blacklisted immediately unless there's an extenuating circumstance, like a bunch of anons all adding links at the same time. There has to be a request on MediaWiki Talk:Spam-blacklist first, with a wait for further analysis and comments, and then listing. Often we've found, however, that once a single spammer is reverted and blocked a few times, he gives up. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured, I'll wait and see how it goes...thanks, CTJF83 21:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]