I've raised the issue of the IP vandalism to your and another editor's talk page at WP:ANI#IP Vandalism. Not sure exactly what is going on, but think it needs to be raised so that other more experienced admins can take a look. Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needn't have bothered. It's Mr. Hanson, aka Grawp, HAGGER and a few others. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. No sense wasting more time on this than necessary. —Dark 09:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please semi-protect your talk page
I noticed in the revision history that all those IP addresses keep blanking your talk page and each time people had to rollback those edits. Please semi-protect it. Merlion444 09:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've semi-protected it. If DarkFalls unprotects it that's his decision and I'll not revert him. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary
I judge from your obscenity that you "declined the speedy" on Feisty Studios? I have prodded the article for deletion; there appear to be no reliable references that establish the company's notability or even the basic facts as they are stated in the article. This Google search proved conclusive to me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was hardly an obscenity. I was bewildered how Irbisgreif decided to revert 15 edits as vandalism, when it was obvious that they were addition of content and references. And the edit summary stating the edits were "vandalism" is just.. off-putting. That being said, I have no objections to the prodding of the article, although it's obvious the article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. —Dark 06:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DarkFalls ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not re-instate edits by user 203.76.185.18, who is a proven IP sock of an indefinitely blocked sock of an indefinitely-blocked sock of an indefinitely-blocked master.
I did not reinstate the edit. I reverted my rollback of the IP address' revision, as I was uncertain as to whether the IP's edit were in fact, vandalism. —Dark 06:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to the reason you declined the speedy deletion nomination, and then suggest that I send it to AfD or Prod. It was appropriately tagged ({{db-person}}) as she is a real person and the article, in my opinion, does not emphasize the importance or notability of her. Even a quick Google search did not reveal any credible sources besides her blog and radio website, which are not 3rd-party sources. Panoptical (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sourcing has nothing to do with speedy deletions. When tagging/deleting under CSD A7, the article must not have any indications or assertions of notability. "She is the evening and weekend announcer on CFWF-FM in Regina, Saskatchewan." is an indication of notability. —Dark 07:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you deleted it there was no previous article on Dub Police so how could I recreate a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion? (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) , cheers reply quickly :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumbriandubsteper (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your post at the above AFD on a new martial art bothers me. This was the version at the time, that you based your post on. You posted:
"I just read the article, and to be quite honest, feel that it does satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines... it is reliably sourced... Since I believe the notability of the article is satisfied... It now has 11 independent sources. And to refute the argument posed by Wayne, it is determined by the Phillip Rhee source that the martial arts is not localised".
The "eleven independent sources":
Detailed list of the 11 sources
Three references from 2004 [coates, robinson, shaw], certainly before the topic even existed (!) and all related to a passing piece of news about its founder being on the team of a completely different sport in any event (!)
Two references from 1st half 2005 [davies, white], very likely identical in nature -- and identically irrelevant to the topic's notability.
The promoter's personal page on his local town website, almost certainly self-published [official village website].
A 2008 casual interview in a non-notable and possibly non-reliable university magazine (apparently) of the promoter's travels to see experts in a different sport, with tangential tiny (< 1 sentence) mention that he'd discussed his new sport with them too. [ the Lau Philip "LA" interview].
3 entries marked "Reference and support of <promoter>, Written Reference" [chris, cook, rhee], obviously a request by the founder to a friend/colleague write a letter of support, that was never published anyway and isn't cited so you can't have read it (not that it was even possibly valid evidence).
A short writeup of a "local information" kind, on the award of the first 4 black belts by the school, in its local paper.
5 were before the sport existed and were not even remotely to do with the topic itself much less "sourced" material on it or "substantial" coverage (they had precisely zero coverage);
3 were claims of personal "I think <promoter> is a great guy" letters of support, evidently solicited and/or written on request, with zero evidence of verifiable existence, and certainly in no way reliably sourced or independent;
1 was self-written
1 was the briefest of non-mentions in a non-reliable source (promoter stating "I discussed the topic with them and we got excited" is not "coverage" of the topic)
1 is local press coverage of his courses that's not even "news for a day" -- or evidence of anything beyond "a course by this name is taught twice weekly in our local village hall".
Your AFD assessment states:
That the topic is "reliably sourced" via 11 sources
There is barely one reliable source in all of those 11 that the sport even exists in the first place (!). The sole genuine coverage is a local newspaper mention, that classes are held in the village hall on tuesdays and fridays (!) Even that is probably via self-promotion. There is zero reliable sourcing for any of the rest.
That the cited pages are evidence of notability
Most don't mention it, or even date from a time the topic existed! Almost all were self-evidently incapable of supporting the topic. How on earth could they "reliably evidence" it?
That the "11 sources" are all "independent"
Almost half are self-evidently not, even without reading. Specifically, 3 are claims that "please support me" letters exist (they are even stated to be "personal references", unpublished and uncited), and 1 is his own clearly self-written web page on a local village web host.
That the "LA cite" shows it is "non-localized"
The page didn't list a link, just a claim (without the kind of cite information that might give credibility) by the author. More obviously, the cite openly stated "Cambridge University and Bristol Taekwando" (!) a big indication of its probable actual source. When a link was provided on request [1] it turns out it's an interview by a UK martial artist for a UK student magazine on the promoter's travels to LA, and concerned Taekwando (!) -- it's not an "LA interview" ("non-localized"), nor even coverage of the topic.
Serious concern.
So I thought I'd ask. FT2(Talk | email) 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I'd admit I should look at the sources more thoroughly. Regardless, the outcome (of delete) was right in the end. —Dark 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O hai
I iz actually needin to have (sorta) srs conv wit u (despite mai reluctant sharin of puppetmaster). P:NSW is in a bit of a state of disrepair - now that Spebi's gone, Daniel and you are the main people left who got it to feechered status, so I thought I'd leave a note. Iz not important, will probably try to start maintaining it myself, but wud liek halpz :O if u r not buzy with srs adminning. iana-ray♠zasta-day 09:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmph. Looks like we need some form of rotation. oh noes :o —Dark 05:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4chan
Why do you think the guy should be sent to jail for something trivial such as vandalism? Do you have some idea of the shit that goes on is U. S. prisons, especially those of big cities like Los Angeles? There are gangs of blacks who hate crackers and fuck them up real bad. Kirikuri (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism? I do not consider the posting of a person's personal information and identifiable details as "trivial" as vandalism. 4chan obviously have a very sheltered view of what the posting of personal information on a website like Wikipedia can do for a person's life. What this guy has done is harassment, plain and simple. If someone deliberately and maliciously ruins the life of others through illegal activities, he deserves to go to jail. This isn't just my personal opinion, it's the law. —Dark 07:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add that vandalism in any form is not trivial. These small criminal acts can always lead to larger criminal acts; sometimes they do. As such, they should always be punished. Do you call an act of stealing a pack of gum in a gas station as trivial, when it could progress to larger thefts? A good example: the serial killer David Berkowitz's first criminal act was petty theft, and grew, and grew. Etc. NoFlyingCars (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Thanks much for the great answer to my question on my discussion page! NoFlyingCars (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. —Dark 06:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a crime to post the truth about people, especially their personal information. And if their personal information ruins their lives, then they deserve it. If they hadn’t done anything wrong, then their personal information wouldn’t cause any harm. You don’t see contributors to Encyclopedia Britannica or Webster’s Dictionary hiding behind pseudonyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.203.25 (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"And if their personal information ruins their lives, then they deserve it." Thank you for condoning harassment. Have a nice day, and I dearly hope that whoever put you up to this isn't quite as ignorant as you. —Dark 06:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If they hadn’t done anything wrong, then their personal information wouldn’t cause any harm." - So are you saying that if a person hasn't done something wrong, nothingbadwillhappentothem? Provided these examples were not from the internet, but given the amount of death threats arising from nutcases (such as Grawp)... Thank you for sharing your ignorance. —Dark 08:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And since you don't see the harm in posting personal information, maybe you should post yours and stop hiding behind that IP address. Just a thought. —Dark 08:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
