Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 31 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at Beeswaxcandle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I noticed that you also have been on the receiving end of a torrent of abuse due to an unpleasant interaction with User:Ihardlythinkso. This user has been poking fun at me and following me around the site for months insulting me at every turn. I was wondering perhaps if I opened a "Request for Comment" on this user would you second it? Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I don't really like escalating conflicts of this type but I do think some sort of direction is required for this user, and if you initiate an RfC I will make a brief comment. I'm not really inclined to help construct one though. Just let me know what you decide to do. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I just remembered this rude and profane comment from User:Ihardlythinkso. Maybe some anger management would be in order. He seems stressed, that's a shame. Thank you and I hope you are having a good evening. OGBranniff (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah, interesting little note there. In any case, hate to bother you, but I just posted this on a fellow-administrator's talk page User_talk:Drmies#Quick_question about "Ihardlythinkso" if you care to check it out. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at CorporateM's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• FYI -- OGB and been blocked indef. Here is a bit more on the background. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basalik, I only post on Wee's talk page if it is extremely necessary. In this case I was forced to comment over there after he made this childish comment on the talk page of the article. Had I answered him on the article's talk page it would only have meant more disruption to the content discussion at hand. If you can honestly say that comment warranted an answer in place, then we have very different views on what kind of comments are acceptable in an article's talk page. Last time I conducted the whole conversation in my talk page after he deleted my original message, just to avoid this. Trust me, I don't enjoy being abused by him whenever I end up forcibly commenting in his talk page. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being forced to his talk page at all. The best kind of response to such comments is to ignore them, but if you don't have the capacity to be the bigger man and feel that such comments require a response, you can do so at the article talk page. There is no need to let it spill over onto his talk page. That just stokes the fire. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, next time I'll let these kind of comments by Wee slide (even though the optimal solution would be for him not to make such unhelpful comments in the first place...). I'll just note that it makes it very hard to establish a collaborative environment in an article when one of the editors downright bans another from contacting him in a civil and friendly way, even for trivial matters like making a childish comment that disrupts a discussion and should be removed. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered this other rather unhelpful and disruptive comment made also today by Wee in another article's talk page. Note that I abstained from responding to that one either in place or in his own talk page. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Belchfire is still evading his block, this time as 174.21.89.148 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS). I'm not sure what you have to do to confirm this but since you extended his last block for socking, I thought I would let you know that he's still doing it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Add it to the SPI case and someone will see to it ASAP. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was taken care of by other users/admins. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This character has reemerged as Seringapatam. Given that you expressed interest in reopening the SPI in the case that he tried anything new, I thought I'd let you know. dci | TALK 22:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely difficult situation has arisen, stalemate, where a possible precedent may be set in connection to media journalism and media speculation as main sources. The outcome is very important and will set the tempo for similar events in future. We need as many sharp pencils we have in the box to answer this question. The subject is not so much at issue more the use of journalistic prognosis or even just speculation in a subject that cannot be really verified. Come and help! --JamboQueen (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how are you? Are you around for a quick question? Thanks, OGBranniff (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's up? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 05:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for getting back to me. For ease of presentation, I'll just link to what I previously stated (tonight) about User:Ihardlythinkso, here on Toddst1's page. Would you mind taking a look at my outline and diffs and please advise me of what I should do, if anything? Thank you for your time. OGBranniff (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Like I said before, I'm not going to get involved in constructing an RfC. It's not my style. If someone runs one for whatever reason then I'll probably comment, briefly, but the rest is up to you. Sorry. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, and thank you for the advice. OGBranniff (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the bottom line question is, if I post an RFC would you "second" it? I notice you had some involvement concerning "Ihardlythinkso" concerning his "uneducated" comment about me recently. All I really am asking you for is a "second" IF I should draft a succinct Request for Comment. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, the good news is that Ihardlythinkso and I have worked out our differences and are getting along fine now; I expect to be getting along well with him from now on as well. Thanks for your time. OGBranniff (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI --as an update, OGBranniff has been blocked indefinitely.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Basalik, I don't quite understand the reasoning behind your deletion of an Argentinian claim added by Andrés. Your summary says "not neutral source for this claim" but the source (http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/es/history) is the official Argentinian recollection of the dispute and the sovereignty issue. What source could be better to get the Argentinian claims from than Argentina's own official article stating those claims? Just in case, I checked and here's the paragraph that supports that claim Andrés added:

Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I shall self-revert. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to let you know that the first thing Wee Curry Monster did just now upon returning from a brief period of no editing was to remove twice[1][2] content agreed in the talk page in a discussion that involved 7 editors. This is text book edit-warring. Since I am not allowed to leave him a message in his talk page asking him to stop this and I've already stated clearly in the talk page why his edit was reverted (and I'm really not interested in engaging in an edit war with him) what should I do? If I revert him again there's no doubt he'll just revert a third time and he is without a doubt fully aware that his behavior is edit-warring. He is also fully aware of WP:BRD and clearly knows he should try to get consensus in the talk page after having an edit reverted, as I did after he reverted me for the first time[3] more than a week ago. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bored of this dispute. Maybe you need a new hobby. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was helpful. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia needs to place a sign on the Falklands/Malvinas articles, letting readers know that valuable editors are motivated to leave by subjecting them to filibustering and etc. Basalisk, these articles are very tendentious and that's harmful. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Basalik, I've opened a new section regarding your reversion of my edit in the talk page of the article. I'll await your comments. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Basalik. Could I bother you with a self rv? Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 16:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Added some evidence to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Surasaman, just not sure how well it works. I can look for more or figure out how to do it. There is this strange issue of what I believe to be socking going on on Wikipedia to avoid a global block, but most of the evidence being on another project and IRC, which complicates the matter. :/ Not entirely certain how to deal with it. --LauraHale (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might only be petty because Wikipedia has this bizarre culture where personal attacks are freely allowed. If Wikipedia was a real company/organization, this type of treatment would never be accepted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your frustration, but I can assure you that Wikipedia is a "real organisation". I can also confirm that these kind of minor degrading comments aimed at one's integrity are commonplace in "real" places of work (which is what I assume you meant). If you want to enjoy your time on this project your best bet is to develop a little thicker skin and try to let things slide a little more. It's no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Regards. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no idea where you work at, but in the places where I've work at, this would not be allowed. Please, be part of the solution, not part of the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it wasn't intentional. I didn't even get an edit conflict, and then, when I hit Save, the thread had been archived.[4][5] Bishonen | talk 00:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It's a good job you made me laugh, or I'd have been straight to the bottom of the page to open up a new discussion about insulting ANI behaviour by administrator Bishonen. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, I don't mind being a martyr to the cause! We're bleeding policy pages, from weatherbeaten oldies to freshfaced young guidelines, all most likely driven off the project by MF or some other rude fellow! Got to take a stand! Support the Policy Defense League! Bishonen | talk 01:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Is that the new "cool", pseudo-fascist name for ArbCom? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an alternative name for the Civility Police. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I have a suspicion that User:Paramsinghantaal, whom you blocked recently, may be evading at Banda Singh Bahadur. They were very insistent on removing the content that has been removed twice by IPs since their block, and despite me opening a talk page thread prior to the block in an attempt to invite discussion. Would it be worthwhile semi-protecting in an attempt to force the issue on to the talk page? - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the page for 3 months first-as-last. Let me know if there are further problems. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm hoping that some people will start talking because I have the feeling that a lot of the sources will not be written in English and thus my ability to sift through them will be practically zero. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Basalisk. Been a while since we last chatted. Just wondering... I happened to notice all the rights you gave your alt account. No objections there (I did the same thing to my own alt on Wikidata, in fact), but I'm a bit concerned about your assignment of EFM rights: As I'm sure you know, they're far and away the most dangerous sub-admin rights available (and, in fact, arguably more dangerous in themselves than admin rights), and seeing as you plan on using the account on public computers, if access were to fall into the wrong hands I'd hate to see the middle part of your signature coming true and landing you here. Anyways, just thought I'd bring that up. The only other flag I could see being an issue is account creator, since it can bypass certain restrictions that would make some lucky library vandal very very happy to discover.... but that's a lot less serious than blocking every single edit, so if you really want to keep that one, I suppose that's your prerogative. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a little think about this and decided you're right about EFM. I'm never going to be messing around with the edit filter on a public computer and so I've removed the flag from my alt. Thanks for approaching me about this. Regards. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Basalisk. Take it from an expert on the subject, you're better off without the temptation. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The material I added was already in other articles. Your reversion shows you have not read these other articles or know much about the subject. It clearly demonstrates you have WP:POV issues. Have a nice day explaining your actions. 86.176.8.94 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have no affiliation on this matter, i'm just doing what the IP failed to do. here's the discussion, go do some administrator justice! MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 18:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page on Burnpur Cement was speedily deleted under A7, though the deletion was contested at the talk page. The company is a BSE and NSE listed company (two major stock exchanges in India)[6], and have significant coverage in WP:RS Google News. I think this should not have been deleted under A7, please undelete the article. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I read your comment on the talk page. The thing is, WP:NCORP stipulates that listing on a major stock exchange does not infer inherent notability so it doesn't really matter where it's listed. I also read the bit where you said you'd found sources, but you didn't supply them in the article or even on the talk page, and so I had nothing to go on. If you can actually show me the sources, I'll undelete the article. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are www.burnpurcement.com and the image is from www.in.com Kindly undelete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Why has the page not been undeleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source you supplied is self-published, and therefore not appropriate for use. I don't know where on that website the image is located, and I'm not a file copyright expert, but I imagine it's not in the free domain either and so can't be used. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image is perhaps copyrighted Proper source for article - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/burnpur-cement-ltd/infocompanyhistory/companyid-18756.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. One more source like that is enough. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion which involves some of your actions is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:KumiokoCleanStart. Fram (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I been an editor here for a long time, and have a few thousand edits, hold Reviewer and Rollbacker. I started staging a new article in my sandbox and spend the entire weekend gathering data for it , links bits and pieces as I have done sine 2008. In 5 hours that I was asleep, everything got deleted. The reference within the article was from a peer reviewed technical journal. Another was from a Middle Eastern Thesis that took me 2 hours to find. Please tell me how I can recover this information that took me the whole weekend to gather so I can place it back into my sandbox and continue working on my next new article. Thanks, Meishern (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I just reread all the rules about sandbox use, and realize that my understanding of what a sandbox is deviated from those rules. I previously looked at a sandbox as my private space not visible to search engines where i can paste parts of articles , links, etc and then slowly go over them to shape them there and not on public display in the name space of the real article.

It was just very convenient. Now I have no idea what the purpose of the sandbox even is besides letting new editors practice. I will offer a suggestion to keep search engines out of the sandbox and thus give editors a place to organize references. But I am rambling. In any case please accept my apology and I can see now see how a heap of links, and quotes from news releases can look like a spam page if looked through the eyes of someone aware that the sandbox section is not blocked to web crawlers. Thanks, Meishern (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Basalisk, Yesterday I created a page for the video sharing website ZippCast.com by Yesterday evening the page had already been deleted with claims claiming that it violated Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A7. However this is incorrect and I would like you to review your decision on the subject.

ZippCast is not just another video sharing site made using a video sharing script available on the web, it is completely originally coded and includes many many features which no other video sharing site offers or has ever offered. (For example it offers much more channel customization options than any other site.) It was voted #3 in an online vote for top ten video sharing sites (http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/top-video-sharing-websites.asp ) It is (proportionally)the fastest growing video sharing sites on the web and is frequently refereed to without explanation on sites such YouTube meaning users ( such as me i did) will attempt to look it up on Wikipedia.

Now without turning this into a long ZippCast add I will keep it short but I can name much more if you like. Refusing to recognize ZippCast but recognizing other competing sites is just promotional, bias and potentially commercially damaging for a site with much more features than ones which are listed.