User:Martial75/desk

[edit] AIV

[edit] Alerts

[edit] Bot-reported

[edit] User-reported

[edit] UAA

[edit] Bot-reported

• Natalija.ru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the regular expression called Top level domain. The portion that matched was .ru.

• This report was delayed until the user edited.
• When using the name Natalija.ru(link) as a http URL I got a response code of 200.A response code starting in 2 means HTTP server found, succesful request.
• The string called Top level domain has a comment associated with it: Please check whether this name is promoting a Web site. Names may coincidentally resemble URLs or point to parked domains so take care. HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• VivaMacau.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• Matches the regular expression called Top level domain. The portion that matched was .com.

• When using the name VivaMacau.com(link) as a http URL I got a response code of 200.A response code starting in 2 means HTTP server found, succesful request.
• The string called Top level domain has a comment associated with it: Please check whether this name is promoting a Web site. Names may coincidentally resemble URLs or point to parked domains so take care. HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nazii 86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• Matches the literal pattern nazi.

• The string nazi has a comment associated with it: Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view may be in violation of the username policy due to creating a hostile editing environment. HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User-reported

• Dungeness Valley Lutheran Church (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock · softblock · spamblock) - may be promotional, wait untill edits Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: If this 'might' be promotional then it isn't a blatant violation meriting attention here. Consider a username concern and/or conflict of interest notification instead. WilliamH (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussing with user. Templated for now. They may or may not edit. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Please read the discussion threads here, including the quoted part from BLP. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read it. Thanks. Sean William @ 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR

1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not function as a court of law. You don't need me to "cancel" a revert, or even need it formally forgiven. Just ignore it and move on. Sean William @ 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendation that I "ignore and move on", however I still think that the fourth revert should be undone. If you don't see the need to undo the fourth revert - it's a legitimate position, and I accept your right to hold that position. Anyway, contrary to what you said, I really "need" you - because the article is protected, and the current protected version is the fourth revert. Hope you understand my point.

Have a successful day.

Eliko (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

While I see where you are coming from, the edit you want undone is still valid, regardless of any potential 3RR violations. When the intervening admin came upon the situation, he was presented with a choice: block, or protect. This particular admin chose to protect the article instead of block the user. Do not make the mistake of thinking that he "got away" with breaking the 3RR; the page protection will force him and others who want to edit the page to discuss proposed changes on the article's talk page.

I am not willing to undo the revert, and will leave the article in its current state. If you have an issue with the current text of the article, then talk with the person who is reverting you either on his user talk page or on the article's talk page. Sean William @ 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rouge admin

Your page is in the deleted Category:Rouge admins due to including a userbox whose maintainer objects to the deletion of the category. Do you intend for your page to appear in this category? —Random832 14:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to keep myself in this category, but it's clearly bothering people, so I subst'ed the userbox and removed the category. Sean William @ 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear Sean, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Burk

I would like some rationale as to where you arrived at a "consensus" of delete for the Lauren Burk AfD. Your only comment, in closing the debate, was "The result was delete. David Eppstein raises an excellent point." There is no rationale given whatsoever. Nor, is there even a reiteration of -- or link to -- or quote of -- David Eppstein's "excellent point". One would have to scour the entire page to find the posting by David Eppstein buried somewhere in the middle of the debate. And, his post is simply: "Delete per WP:BIO1E. Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes." Fine, we realize that some editors (like David Eppstein) are not convinced of notability ... and that others are. Ya ... and ...? His "excellent point" merely states that he is not convinced of notability. This is the only rationale / explanation you have offered at arriving at a "consensus" of delete. Please advise. Please respond at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Replied on user's talk page per request. Sean William @ 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please resolve any issues with me humanely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.210.167 (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to say, considering the duplicate votes and SPAs that the consensus was far closer to delete than the Carson afd. Closing it as such is understandable and commend you for boldly doing such considering how heated the argument was. I implore Joseph, Egras, or BB to create an article in a more appropriate context, like "Murder of..." or similar. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh*, just letting you know, [1]. Tiptoety ^talk 06:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Sean William @ 14:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Spadaro's options

• You forgot option 5, whine pointlessly some more, which he will no doubt do. :\ JuJube (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  I hope that Mr. Spadaro does not choose that option. Sean William @ 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norebo

Hello! :) Late last year, Norebo was nominated for deletion. After a short discussion, it was ruled that the article should be deleted (4 delete/3 keep). Based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I had suggested a merge and/or redirect of the article to List of Greyhawk deities, hoping to preserve the edit history. After the fact, I decided to create a redirect anyway. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? If you agree, you can obliterate the current edit history, or just add it to the original edit history. Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the history of the original article, and left the redirect in place. For the sake of continuity, I have kept the history after the article was redirected on December 9. Cheers, Sean William @ 12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're awesome, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yesterday

I realize you're not happy with the blocks yesterday, but I think your strong language on ANI and MZMcBrides' talk page won't help anything. It might be better just to let the incidents pass without harping either on the blocked admins or the admins who blocked them. For what it's worth, AzaToth appeared to have good spirits about the block, and it was lifted very quickly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A valid point. However, I'm extremely frustrated that administrators are still not learning their lesson, even after repeating the same mistakes again and again. I'm still interested in MZMcBride's justification. Sean William @ 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your actions yesterday

Hello. AzaToth vandalized two MediaWiki: pages that affected the site interface for all users. While I appreciate humor and having a good time, doing so in the article namespace or the MediaWiki: namespace, is, for the most part, entirely unacceptable. It sets an incredibly bad example for non-admins and other users of the site. Do we really want a precedent that it's okay to vandalize on April 1? In addition, there are entire namespaces in which jokes are both allowed and even encouraged (Wikipedia: and User:).

I fully supported David's blocks yesterday, and even left him a note saying so. What disappointed me more than anything was that two admins thought it prudent to simply wheel war because they didn't agree with David's actions. That's pretty unacceptable. Drini's blocks fall into the same category. As he pointed out yesterday, had people vandalized different parts of the site on December 28 (the Day of the Holy Innocents a.k.a. Fool's Day), they would have unquestionably been blocked and de-sysopped.

What occurred at MediaWiki:Tagline was upsetting and disgraceful. To see admins edit warring over one of the most visible parts of the site (in shows up on almost every page and in printable versions) was, to me, unthinkable. I would fully support some of the admins who edit warred yesterday losing their sysop bits, with prejudice.

As to AzaToth's block, in my mind, it is never necessary to warn admins to not vandalize. I blocked AzaToth to prevent further disruption of the site messages. Admins are users who have been trusted by the community to act responsibly with their extra tools. Intentionally disrupting the site isn't appropriate behavior for an admin. Ever. AzaToth's actions, whatever their intentions, were disruptive and unnecessary. Did the block serve to de-escalate? Perhaps. It certainly stopped AzaToth from disrupting any other site messages. But at the end of the day, blaming anyone other than AzaToth for his "sullied" block log is simply absurd. Actions have consequences; vandalism is not tolerated -- and that goes doubly for admins.

If you have any further questions or need clarification, please let me know. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose we'll just agree to disagree. CBM made a good point in the section above here, so I'm done complaining for now. Thanks for answering. Sean William @ 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Adminship

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Martial75/desk a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- ~~~~

Idontknow610^TM 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But it's felt so much longer than one year... Thanks! Sean William @ 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Martial75/desk a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- SMS Talk 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 Fiesta Bowl

You may want to revise the entry regarding "The Call". Upon reviewing the replay of the call you can clearly see the ball being tipped at the line by a Miami D-Lineman (#94, William Joseph), thus negating any pass interference that may have been called. Therefore the correct call would be a no-call. Also, if you use Dennis Dodd's column as a reference, you should also use Rick Reilly's "Fiesta Fiasco" as a counter reference. Link provided: http://cgi.cnnsi.com/inside_game/rick_reilly/news/2003/01/10/life_of_reilly/

I've never used Wikipedia so, I'm not sure how to do all this myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.202.89 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You can edit the article the same way you edited my talk page here. Just click the "edit this page" tab and make the changes you suggested. Sean William @ 16:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Edit

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing Martial75/desk a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Idontknow610^TM 13:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• {{indef}}
• {{gblock-i|why}}, {{genblock|why|howlong}}, {{blocked|howlong}}
• {{afd top}}, {{afd bottom}}
• {{mfd top|result}}, {{mfd bottom}}
• {{drt|header|result}}, {{drb}}
• {{rfcua}}, {{rfcub}}, {{CUI|switch}}
• {{tl}}, {{tlp}}, {{tlx}}

• Abdullahi Musa Liman -- talk
• Andy Barnett -- talk
• Ann Guise -- talk
• Apple Sanity -- talk
• Atmonauti -- talk
• Bernard Jonientz -- talk
• CSTP (TM) -- talk
• Carelink -- talk
• Cobia Lodge 631 -- talk
• Collaborative marketing -- talk
• Cunningham Cup -- talk
• DXF Games -- talk
• David Toscana -- talk
• Department of Computer Science & Engineering (Jahangirnagar University) -- talk
• Development Alliance -- talk
• Dj lost soul -- talk
• Dr. Catherine Bancroft -- talk
• EGO DE -- talk
• Eddie Dee -- talk
• Electrocrass -- talk
• England vs The Big Three at rugby union -- talk
• Francisco García Hernández -- talk
• Freddie's Master Plan -- talk
• Hilda Leesmann -- talk
• How To Be -- talk
• Images of global warming -- talk
• Indo G -- talk
• Kaiju War Chronicles -- talk
• Keenan Christenson -- talk
• Kilometraje -- talk
• King Tiger the Band -- talk
• Mesanjarz of Funk -- talk
• Mexicano 777 -- talk
• Miss Caraibes Hibiscus 2002 -- talk
• Mr. Bungle chord -- talk
• Mullakkara -- talk
• National Express West Midlands routes 704, 705 and 705A -- talk
• Neudeck Building -- talk
• Nubankhre -- talk
• Ogguere -- talk
• Opinion seeding -- talk
• Plasma skimming -- talk
• Ponte Vedra Beach Resorts -- talk
• Prolebrity -- talk
• Raúl J. Ruiz Cabrera -- talk
• Rebecca Saber -- talk
• Relief Air Transport -- talk
• Robert Nichols (Electronic Music Producer) -- talk
• Robert Stone (Actor) -- talk
• Schmear -- talk
• Searchles -- talk
• Shing02 -- talk
• Shrishailappa -- talk
• Soap-dodger -- talk
• Solo hiking -- talk
• Symbolic music -- talk
• TNTRide -- talk
• Tedd Webb -- talk
• The Fading -- talk
• The Five Deaths -- talk
• The Flop -- talk
• The Return Of The Space Cowboy -- talk
• This days fury -- talk
• Tom parrish -- talk
• Transcendence (Rock Band) -- talk
• Union station security Toronto -- talk
• University of architecture, Bukan -- talk
• Upstairs Downstairs Bears -- talk
• Village bicycle -- talk
• Yashoda Scheme -- talk
• Young Men With Potential -- talk
• Zombie gutz -- talk