User talk:Bastique/archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Gerry Adams 2 Permissions turnaround? 3 Request for clarification at WP:AN 4 Misunderstanding 5 Request 6 Trolling 7 Can you clarify Foundation position please? 8 Explain protection please 9 Template:Future election candidate 10 Orphaned non-free image (Image:FSC-logo.png) 11 ADMIN Playing God 12 Permissions-en question 13 New Chapter Coordinator 14 Rob Simmelkjaer bio 15 Diyako checkuser logs 16 Chris Benoit Story 17 Sorry to bother you… 18 ga.wikipedia 19 Little help 20 WP:OFFICE pages on WP:MFD 21 OTRS issue 22 Could you make a quick comment over at Talk:Todd Goldman? 23 WP:Spotlight 24 Vandalism 25 Volunteer coordinator 26 Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 2 27 My RfA 28 WikiProject Lepidoptera policy - Assessment of importance of articles 29 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2 30 WikiProject Lepidoptera policy - Draft categorisation guidelines & Common vs scientific names 31 Welcome Back! 32 ColScott (talk · contribs) 33 Re-created 34 Time for the WP's official copyright lawyer to weigh in 35 Frank Zampino 36 truthout.org 37 I've got a present for you... 38 Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, Inc. (IRmep) Edit war continues

[edit] Gerry Adams

Thanks for your comments. I think there's already broad agreement about the previous format not being ideal. Can I ask for your input about whether a sourced paragraph or two of prose dealing with his alleged IRA career in a chronological order would be acceptable in terms of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If each instance is well covered in several sources, yes. Otherwise, no, a summary of a couple of the instances in a single paragraph inclusive of his denial is appropriate. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll write a rough draft later, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Permissions turnaround?

I'm really sorry to bother you with this, but can you tell me what the typical turnaround time is to process an issue sent to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org"? See Talk:Tanbur (Persian)#Copyright and the section following it, I suspect I am having my leg pulled over some text I don't think we should use in any case. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is quite a backlog of permissions emails on OTRS. Cary Bass ^demandez 16:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I will wait this out a bit longer. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification at WP:AN

Hey Bastqiue, could you clarify the circumstances surrounding one of your unblocks? See WP:AN. Thanks, Iamunknown 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstanding

I have a feeling, based on your response to my the terrorists have won comment on WP:AN, you believe I was calling you or ColScott or someone else a terrorist. That was not my intent; please review this. -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it...it was a misunderstanding. Cary Bass ^demandez 22:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

To avoid confusion among administrators, it would be very helpful if you could indicate WP:OFFICE actions as such in the logs. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

I think it funny that my question about policy is called "trolling", yet this somehow is not. 24.184.232.55 04:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you clarify Foundation position please?

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blocked for personal attacks. Hesperian 07:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked, because I respect your position, if not your decision. Fortunately for me, you and the Foundation are big enough to take constructive criticism:

This user has been injecting puerile vandalism into Wikipedia for over a year; he constantly and egregiously violates NPA; he responded to my 24 hour block by threatening me, and then followed through by repeatedly vandalising my user talk page through the use of sockpuppets. If you think turning him loose and ignoring his violations of both policy and human decency is an appropriate way to handle him, then... Christ, I don't even know how to finish this sentence. I'm really quite disgusted.

Hesperian 12:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explain protection please

You appear to have protected User_talk:ColScott with the rationale that "Protected User talk:ColScott: Prevent trolling from anons [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]", but reviewing the page history shows a single edit by an anonymous user, which doesn't appear to meet any reasonable definition of trolling. Also, if it did, a protection at that stage would still be terribly pre-emptive . Please clarify this, I intend to remove the (apparently mistaken) protection otherwise but I'd like to confer with you first. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove the protection. It was not a mistake. Cary Bass ^demandez 15:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am formally requesting an explanation of why it was not a mistake. Please be clear and explicit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the talk page merits unprotection. I believe unprotecting will allow users to post anonymously and therefore add more fuel to the fire. But apparently folks disagree with me. So feel free to unprotect it. This is not an office action. Cary Bass ^demandez 15:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page, thanks! If anons start harassing the user, then it should be re-semi'd immediately, but since this has yet to happen, a semi-protect isn't warranted. I appreciate the quick response. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Future election candidate

I am writing to let you know that I have nominated Template:Future election candidate for deletion. Please see the discussion at TfD. --Metropolitan90 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:FSC-logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:FSC-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ADMIN Playing God

Just FYI- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ#ColScott Bottom of page, potentially abusive admin has stated that HE doesn't think I belong on WikiWorld because he hates my block log. While he hasn't busted a move yet, he seems to be conspiring via email with Hesperian, the last admin who blocked without reason. I just thought I would keep you informed, that's all. I hope this week is great for you. ColScott 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cary, at the risk of being accused of conspiring with Josh and of having motives ascribed to me for daring to ask the following, I pose this question: Why is ColScott being protected? No one can leave a message on his page and yet he can be an arrogant little pile of fecal matter on other user's page? Come on, is this really in Wikipedia's best interests? Thanks. •Jim62sch• 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wowsa that is a personal attack and definitely warrants a time out ban of two millenia. ColScott 18:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

ColScott: if you misbelieve that was a personal attack I assure you that I could show you what a true personal attack is. But I won't. Cary's page (and Wikipedia itself) is not the appropriate place to engage in a full-scale personal attack, and as the rewards of such an enterprise are scant at best, doing so would merely be a waste of bytes and time. It is, however, the appropriate place to request answers to questions, and in order to do so, one must be as clear as possible regarding the situation at hand. You will, of course, have noticed the "can be" construction of the second sentence. It's a subjunctive usage. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this now. Nobody is being protected. A lot of people worked very hard to bring an out-of-control situation under control. It is under control now, and ColScott must abide by our policies and procedures exactly like anyone else.

Please exercise some common sense and stop bringing this discussion to my talk page. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comme vous avez demandé •Jim62sch• 14:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Permissions-en question

Hi there, It's unclear from reading the meta pages on OTRS if there is a separate volunteer process for working the permissions-en queue. I'm not necessarily interested in answering info emails, but I think I could be of great help with the permissions queue. I am an admin who works Wikipedia:Copyright problems quite extensively; I frequently run into articles where editors have claimed to send the requisite permissions email. It would be nifty to be able to kill two birds with one stone - I could verify on the spot and clear the issue. Info appreciated - if I need to go through the standard volunteer process, I will do so. Thanks --Spike Wilbury 21:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi spike. Apply at m:OTRS/volunteering and mention that you'd like to work permissions. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Chapter Coordinator

Hey Bastique, Johnny mentioned that we should talk to some kind of new chapter coordinator person. Who is it? I'll be around tomorrow afternoon on IRC, so let me know then and I'll talk to whoever I need to talk to. --User:Wknight8111 (WB:Whiteknight) 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Her name is Delphine (a.k.a. User:Notafish). And she's not so new :). I'll point this post out to her as well. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying she was new, I was saying she was the person to talk to about new chapters. I'll catch up with her on meta. Thanks! --Whiteknight (WB:Whiteknight) 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Simmelkjaer bio

Hi Bastique -

Wafulz referred me to you. I have been trying to input an entry for ABC News correspondent Rob Simmelkjaer using the press bio available through ABC, where I currently work. I have permission to use the bio and press photos. What else do I need to do in order to post this information?

Please advise.

Thanks!

[edit] Diyako checkuser logs

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ([1], [2], [3]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Benoit Story

I saw your name in some articles about the Benoit story. I am the person who discovered the 4:01 edit to Chris Benoit's page and got the ball rolling by posting the first message about it on his talk page. Read the thread here. If you look at all the other references to this story on the Admin pages or elsewhere on wikipedia, they all start to occur about 60-90 minutes after my post on the Chris Benoit talk page. While someone else may have eventually found it, I am responsible for this story that's now been picked up by CNN, Fox and MSNBC. I'm at best a casual editor, but I do think I deserve some kind of recognition here, especially since the process of posting the information was not pleasant. Notice if you read through the archives of the Benoit page, I ended up being blocked for the thread by an admin whose actions need to be reviewed. Wesleymullins 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take note of your finding the post on the talk page. I have nothing to do with the governance of admins, you'll have to take that up where it's appropriate. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that as concerned with the governance of the admin (he has to know by now he made a huge mistake) as I am with being able to take at least partial credit for the story. When I see quotes in the press. like, "It didn't become apparent until someone put the pieces together and realised that the comment was made by someone who apparently knew about the murders," I know the someone being talked about is me. Wesleymullins 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you care about credit? As Wikinews broke hours ago, the "mystery post" was just speculation on the behalf of some kid, and nothing more. If you *really* want credit for discovering fool's gold, I guess that's your problem, but I'd just drop it, because at this point it doesn't mean anything anymore. TimB 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably a vandal who got lucky, but when you discover something that gets picked up by every major media outlet, come tell me it doesn't mean anything. I told lots of my friends about the post Tuesday morning and then they say it all over the news last night. I got calls saying "Dude, you are famous." Wesleymullins 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can help you with or what exactly you want. I had no idea who it was that first noticed it, hence, "someone". My original source was User talk:Jimbo Wales. Furthermore, it is a personal policy when dealing with the press that users remain anonymous unless they specifically request identification. You are welcome to claim credit for noticing the diff.

I do not expect any further interviews about the matter, but if the question comes up, I'll be happy to identify you to the press. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Per this story being featured on Wikinews, I would be happy to look into ways to incorporate the fact that you unearthed the evidence the story is based on. But do you really want the press camped on your doorstep? --Brianmc 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I am a casual editor at best, so I am not real up on how things work around here. But I see stars and awards on people's pages all the time. People have even posted on my talk page that I deserve X or Y. I think a few sentences from wikipedia on my front page congratulating me for my efforts would make me happy. Wesleymullins 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I shall make a suitable award. --Tony Sidaway 16:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate a good joke. You had me for a second. My parents are both science teachers and would be upset that I didnt understand your dig at me right away. I'd still like something official from wikipedia that I could put with my wikinews trophy. Wesleymullins 16:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cary, as regards the above editor's comments re. admin actions, you might just want to note the comments on my talk page here - Alison ☺ 09:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to bother you…

Could I draw your attention to this and this? I'm getting quite bored now at certain people's attitude towards this endeavour, and somewhat pissed off at having to defend it against perennial attempts to kibosh it. Maybe you could add your voice to the discussion? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 11:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Commented. Cary Bass ^demandez 16:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ga.wikipedia

Holy crap! - you truly are a man of many talents. Surprised to see you are a fairly heavy contributor over there. Maith an fear ar fad! :) - Alison ☺ 09:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little help

Hello, I noticed that you had helped making the template he-1 and I was wondering whether you could write what says in this template below in codes like the ones used in the templated you edited. All the other templates on Hebrew use these codes but he-0. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 01:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OFFICE pages on WP:MFD

Two pages presumably protected under the WP:OFFICE policy have been nominated for deletion here. You have been contacted either as an office contact or as someone involved in the editing or maintenance of the nominated pages. If you with to comment, please see the deletion discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS issue

The article Rudy Youngblood has been the focus of a low-level revert war over his ethnicity (and occasionally his birth name) for quite some time. OTRS administrator User:Mark removed a reference to Youngblood being of African-American descent after being contacted by Youngblood's agent about the matter in January. Since then, a string of anonymous editors have continually reinserted statements referring to his ethnicity (usually in reference to his mother) and his (alleged) birth name. I would have notified Mark, but his talk page says that he will not be available until the end of July, and I know that you are one of the OTRS honchos. Could you look into this matter and consider applying semi-protection to this page to eliminate IP edits? Thanks. Horologium t-c 00:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've pointed out the article to other users. Cary Bass ^demandez 17:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you make a quick comment over at Talk:Todd Goldman?

I'm sure this is not something that you're going to like, but could I convince you (or another admin) to make a quick comment over at Talk:Todd Goldman? I'm having a little bit of trouble explaining WP:RS and WP:BLP, especially since I don't particularly have an opinion on the issue at hand (or where I do have an opinion, I disagree with the consensus). For reference, here's the discussion: (1, 2). If you could just comment on why you didn't want the link in the past, I think that that would help. Thanks! superluser_tc 2007 July 08, 23:24 (UTC)

It is a waste of time to persistently explain why a poorly written, poorly sourced, non-notable web page compiled by a single individual with a clear and evident agenda should be included in the Todd Goldman article. Furthermore, the inclusion lends absolutely nothing to the article in question, and only serves as an external link to an attack page. I'm having a hard time understanding why this is still being debated. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It really is a waste of time to keep debating that, but I do appreciate your help.superluser_tc 2007 July 10, 05:05 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Spotlight

Hey, recently the WP:Spotlight article was changed. GM and I are kidna trying to rekindle the project (which seemed to be dying), so if your interested it would be great to have you join us in our attempt to fix Environmentally friendly. --22:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Great! Cary Bass ^demandez 12:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi. There are problem with one user - User:LiveLife, who often removing one external link on page Delara Darabi. This is www.savedelara.com - about a large campaing dedicated to Save Delara, but retains other links. This is totally POW. Darth Kalwejt 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page. Cary Bass ^demandez 18:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volunteer coordinator

Hello Bastique. I see from the Wikipedia Signpost that you have been appointed in the above role. Does this involve looking after the welfare of volunteers? I was involved a few months back in the discussion around Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals and Wikipedia: Responding to suicidal individuals, rejected proposals. In my opinion there is still much to be done in relation to volunteer welfare. I had some off-wiki correspondence with the UK Samaritans and they seem to have various resources that could be used. The way I see it, if Google can work closely with Samaritans, so can and should Wikimedia. Anyway, you may not be responsible for this stuff. Itsmejudith 21:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has no official position on this matter. As this involves the Wikipedia community, it is a community matter, and the community appears to have rejected both of those. Cary Bass ^demandez 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 2

Another meetup, last one wasn't a good success, but hopefully more users will be there, and try to get other people. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community.

On a personal note, Cary, I want you to know how much your support meant to me, and also to do something I've neglected to do but should have, which is to thank you for your incredible support during the election. I appreciate all that you did. Thank you, my friend. - Philippe | Talk 06:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Lepidoptera policy - Assessment of importance of articles

Hi Bastique,

I've brought up a policy issue for discussion on WikiProject Lepidoptera here . May I request your valuable contribution and counsel, as a member of WikiProject Lepidoptera, in this regard. AshLin 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 03:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Lepidoptera policy - Draft categorisation guidelines & Common vs scientific names

Hi Bastique/archive10,

I've brought up two policy issues for discussion on WikiProject Lepidoptera here . May I request your valuable contribution and counsel, as a member of WikiProject Lepidoptera, in this regard. AshLin 18:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Back!

Just a belated welcome-back from another butterfly-wikiproject member. Even if you're all busy with member coordination stuff, whatever that is. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ColScott (talk · contribs)

Yeah.. no surprise there.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-created

I just noticed that we have another page about Live Prayer. Are you OK with this one? The Behnam 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If it meets Wikipedia's criteria, I'm not sure if it matters what I think. We're not so involved in specific articles unless something clear and pressing puts our focus on them. :) Cary Bass ^demandez 05:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for the WP's official copyright lawyer to weigh in

Plese see this thread on Mike Godwin's talk page Also, the community is discussing this: Wikipedia_talk:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted. There seems to be consensus that due to the legal issue involved, the opinion of the Foundation and our General Counsel is A Good Idea(tm). Thanks!--Cerejota 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If Mike Godwin has not responded to you, leaving a message for me will not change matters. Redefining or interpreting the GFDL license as it relates to content on English Wikipedia is not something requiring his attention, I would imagine. Involve some attorneys who edit Wikipedia. This category is a good place to start. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My inquiry was related more to what the Foundation has to say, if anything. Can I interpret your message as meaning the foundation belives this to be a community-decided issue? Thanks!--Cerejota 01:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Zampino

Why did the edits containing libel have to be hidden more than with regular deletion but so they can still be found? Wouldn't oversight have been easier/better? Mr.Z-man 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oversight is only used for matters affecting privacy. It is not appropriate for libel. Ordinary deletion is applicable for these edits. They were moved to a different page so that they would not be restored in case of further edit deletion. Cary Bass ^demandez 22:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that would make sense. Mr.Z-man 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] truthout.org

Hey Cary. Quick question; this article was fully protected due to OFFICE action [4] back in Aug '06, but Brad reduced it to semi in March of this year. Reason I'm asking is it came up on WP:RPP and I work over there answering requests. Someone's just asked to have the prot reduced. Am I okay doing this here? - Alison ☺ 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure Alison. Once something is off Office protection, it's entirely up to the community how to proceed. Cary Bass ^demandez 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks :) - Alison ☺ 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've got a present for you...

Hey bastique, I have a present for you, but i need your mailing address so I can send it. Let me know! --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 23:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, Inc. (IRmep) Edit war continues

Bastique, at one point you moderated a nasty edit war over the above organization. This nonprofit organization published a historical book about AIPAC on September 1, 2007 (it was referenced on that organization's page). Within a few days, IRmep was suddenly flagged for "notability" and scheduled future deletion, e.g. "The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline." It appears to me that this irremovable flag was placed there as retaliation for the book, since the IRmep continues to publish and do research work noted by outside orgs as diverse as Voice of America, Pacifica Radio,Kaleej Times, Radio France and Inside Higher Education. Is it really possible that in the space of a year this organization has suddenly lost notability? --(NSA Buster) (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NSA Buster (talk • contribs) 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that an editor tagged the article. It's hardly considered irremovable. The editor in question apparently works on notability of articles. You are free to remove the tag or discuss the matter on the talk page (preferably the latter, or ask the editor in question why he tagged it. We have a guideline at Wikipedia. It's called Assume good faith. I'm almost 100% positive the editor in question has no intention of retaliating against anything. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I was notified by an unlogged user, who could not change it. I didn't think I could either, thanks for the help. The notability flag sat on that reference for days, damaging the organization's reputation. That is a big deal. The editor in question has a pattern of working on the notability of articles he does not appear to agree with, the AIPAC espionge case, war on terrorism, etc. The record is logged, I reviewed it. The Wikipedia guideline of Assume good faith does not seem to require anyone to avert their eyes if history reveals "deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism." Minimizing an organization that has a history of controversial edits with notability based on apparent prejudice merits no assumptions of good faith or investment in discussion with the perp, according to the guideline. Or does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NSA Buster (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have very little recall about this article or the context, nor am I presently able to deal with any mediation efforts on this article. If you are having a content dispute, there are dispute resolution measures you can take. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)