User talk:BU Rob13: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:16, 24 April 2017

Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.

If you sent me an email, there's no need to notify me here. I check my email regularly and will respond as time permits.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by .

Revdel request

Hey BU Rob13, could you possibly revdel this edit? The link was given by the Louisville Athletics Department over email and is not for the public. It is provided "by request only". Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your BRFA

Your recent BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 35, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita, again, at List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2005

Hi Rob,

Back doing damage at one of the Billboard-type articles I've watched the most concerning them. Might not yet be time to semiprotect that article, but I filed an SPI report over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002. (Pretty much a giveaway to me when their name is User:Wakemeupwhenseptemberends and predictably do at that article what I was thinking when I saw the name.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be time for semiprotect after this edit from an IP (will assume another Nikita sock here, though this is an IPv4)? MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ottawa Redblacks

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottawa Redblacks you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take this as quasi-Peer Review feedback to go on with. I like team articles so ping me if/when renominated and I will be happy to review it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ottawa Redblacks

The article Ottawa Redblacks you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ottawa Redblacks for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks again. I quickly fixed that tag issue (obvious case of PD due to failing the threshold of originality, but not an own work as originally marked most likely). I'll work on referencing once I've (hopefully!) passed my preliminary exams. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it. Concentrate on your exams! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TCC awards navboxes - I missed one

I thought I had put all the navboxes on Touchdown Club of Columbus at TfD but it looks like I missed one, Template:Jim Parker Trophy. If all of them end up deleted could we delete that one as non-controversial? All the same criteria applies. Lizard (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it really needs a TfD. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with an editor who disregards consensus?

Hi BU Rob13,

I'm seeking advice on how to deal with an editor who's disregarding consensus and demonstrating WP:OWN. On the Harem article, Seraphim System added a statement about Jews being the primary provider of eunuchs and heavily involved in Ottoman slave dealings. Every other editor on the talk page said the information was Undue, but Serpahim System has ignored them, stating that it's from a reliable source, even as other users brought up that "The current emphasis on the Jewish role also seems odd. It's not mentioned in any of the general sources on harems I know." and "Why is a section titled “Slavery and the Harem System in Islam” all about the Jews? The Jewish encyclopedia does not even say anything about the harem. Other than the Jewish encyclopedia it’s all primary sources." Serpahim System has ignored everyone and currently the text is still in the article despite unanimous disapproval. The talk page discussion begins Talk:Harem#.22Jewish_slave_merchants_supplied_the_harem_system..22 though it exists across other sections as well. What would be the best way to handle this? Thank you. Drsmoo (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: Best thing to do in this situation is ask for formal closure of the discussion at WP:ANRFC. I'll take a look at the discussion and close it shortly, one way or the other. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 02:26, 24 April 2017 edit Drsmoo (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 6,968 edits →What to do with an editor who disregards consensus?: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:16, 24 April 2017 edit undo Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (talk \| contribs) 90,395 edits →What to do with an editor who disregards consensus?: re Next edit →
Line 56:		Line 56:

	I'm seeking advice on how to deal with an editor who's disregarding consensus and demonstrating WP:OWN. On the [[Harem]] article, Seraphim System added a statement about Jews being the primary provider of eunuchs and heavily involved in Ottoman slave dealings. Every other editor on the talk page said the information was Undue, but Serpahim System has ignored them, stating that it's from a reliable source, even as other users brought up that "The current emphasis on the Jewish role also seems odd. It's not mentioned in any of the general sources on harems I know." and "Why is a section titled “Slavery and the Harem System in Islam” all about the Jews? The Jewish encyclopedia does not even say anything about the harem. Other than the Jewish encyclopedia it’s all primary sources." Serpahim System has ignored everyone and currently the text is still in the article despite unanimous disapproval. The talk page discussion begins [[Talk:Harem#.22Jewish_slave_merchants_supplied_the_harem_system..22]] though it exists across other sections as well. What would be the best way to handle this? Thank you. [[User:Drsmoo\|Drsmoo]] ([[User talk:Drsmoo\|talk]]) 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)		I'm seeking advice on how to deal with an editor who's disregarding consensus and demonstrating WP:OWN. On the [[Harem]] article, Seraphim System added a statement about Jews being the primary provider of eunuchs and heavily involved in Ottoman slave dealings. Every other editor on the talk page said the information was Undue, but Serpahim System has ignored them, stating that it's from a reliable source, even as other users brought up that "The current emphasis on the Jewish role also seems odd. It's not mentioned in any of the general sources on harems I know." and "Why is a section titled “Slavery and the Harem System in Islam” all about the Jews? The Jewish encyclopedia does not even say anything about the harem. Other than the Jewish encyclopedia it’s all primary sources." Serpahim System has ignored everyone and currently the text is still in the article despite unanimous disapproval. The talk page discussion begins [[Talk:Harem#.22Jewish_slave_merchants_supplied_the_harem_system..22]] though it exists across other sections as well. What would be the best way to handle this? Thank you. [[User:Drsmoo\|Drsmoo]] ([[User talk:Drsmoo\|talk]]) 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
			:{{re\|Drsmoo}} Best thing to do in this situation is ask for formal closure of the discussion at [[WP:ANRFC]]. I'll take a look at the discussion and close it shortly, one way or the other. ~ [[User:BU Rob13\|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13\|Talk]]</sup> 05:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)