User talk:HighInBC/Archive 3
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Contents
Any chance you can send me an email to ryanpostlethwaite (at) hotmail (dot) com? There's a favour I'd like to ask you! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I am also on IRC as Until1is2. Until(1 == 2) 17:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Can't get on IRC for some reason, so I've gone for the email route instead - look forward to your reply! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
User:Crystalflame has violated 3RR and has apparently been blocked for 24 hours as a sockpuppet along with the 3RR reverts. I'd send to WP:3RR but since it's a sockpuppet thought someone should deal with it quickly. -WarthogDemon 22:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- It looks like I am a little late for this one. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I had Jpgordon do a checkuser, and I reported the case at WP:ANI before I edit conflicted with you three (!) times at RFCN. I was suspicious from Bushpig's second edit, which was to RFCN. The username was similar-ish to TIW's previous socks (anti-bush/republican/US sentiment, three terms, all initially capitalised but run together). Also 25% of Bushpigs edits were to RFCN. The percentage was higher before the username block that lead to the RFCN case to begin with. Looking at Bushpigs' contributions once the name was at RFCN made my suspicions stronger. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Excellent, good catch. The user is blocked, and all is well in Wikiville again. Keep up the good work. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
for this. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- No problem, I wish I had so many awards they were getting in the way. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have undeleted Final Crisis and removed the cascading protection on it. The article as recreated addressed the problems of the AfD - new, verifiable information had come out, and it was possible to write an article on more than a single tease. Please be more careful when deleting content as a recreation - and particularly when using high-powered admin tools to cascadingly protect the page from recreation. Given that it was a subject that was, by everyone's account, certain to be worthy of an article at some point, this was a particularly damaging decision. Phil Sandifer 01:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- What I see is that the article has the exact same source that were determined inadequate in the AfD. There is still no reliable sources, and it is still crystal balling based on forum postings. I protected it from recreation because it was being recreated in the same state it was AfD'd in. I agree it may be worthy of an article at some point, but after reliable sources are found. If you look at the 21 July 2007 version and the current version, you will see they both rely on the same source, "Newsarama". Newsarama was the very source that the AfD discounted as basically a crystal balling blog.
- In short, the reasons stated in the AfD for deletion still apply, and I think recreation is inappropriate until those issues in the AfD are addressed. Specifically reliable sources are needed to verify the claims made. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- You do not understand the AfD. Newsarama is neither a blog nor crystal balling - it's the most important and mainstream source for comic book news in existence, and it's been considered a reliable source in countless other articles. The issue was that what Newsarama had prior to the first AfD was a single teaser image that was being printed in some comics, and what it had prior to your speedy for recreation was transcripts of the creators of the comic discussing it at the San Diego Comicon. That's a huge shift in the level of notability, and deals with many people's complaints on the AfD. With all due respect, I have the sense that you do not really know much about this topic, and are probably not the best suited person to be making these calls. Phil Sandifer 05:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Furthermore, nobody in the AfD said that Newsarama was an unreliable source. One person called for more reliable sources (they are trivially obtainable - the other major comics news site, Comic Book Resources, also reported the announcement), but nobody disagreed that Newsarama was reliable. The issue was whether a teaser image was sufficient for an article. It wasn't, but an announcement of the creative team, the writer making several statements about what the title would be, and information about what is leading up to the series is a vast increase in the amount of information. Phil Sandifer 05:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- While I disagree with your interpretation, I leave this in your capable hands. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Our friend has mad Google skillz, apparently. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- hehe, All in a days work. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the message - I didn't take it personally, but I appreciate the gesture :-) --David Shankbone 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.