I know you handle PROD articles and I'm hoping that if you are active tomorrow, around 20:00 UTC, you could delete some files that I had tagged. As the editor who tagged the images, I'm "involved" and can not delete them myself. I know you usually delete articles, not files, but I thought I'd post a note that if you are around the project tomorrow, maybe you could take care of them. Hope all is well with you! LizRead!Talk!00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any expired PRODs, files or otherwise, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. Suspect someone else has already been in to clear up the backlog. — Voice of Clam (talk)22:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for doing a good job at blocking him to prevent further vandalism. However, there's just a slight correction. It's an IP address, and the template that was used is "You have been blocked", but the correct one is "Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked". 35.141.142.199 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - I see there is an "anon=yes" optional parameter for that template, but where the anon edits are clearly coming from the same user I don't feel it's necessary, especially for a short block. — Voice of Clam (talk)07:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have come up with a different approach to the problem your edit [1] was made to solve (as I understand it). I think my edit summary explains my thinking. I was wondering if you agreed with that thinking.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Calling something a murder, and naming the "perpetrator" repeatedly as such (section plus infobox), is a severe WP:BLP violation. Fram (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the article does not meet the strict criteria of WP:G10, which states an attack page is "material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced" (my emphasis). Other BLP violations can be edited to remove the offending material, or taken to AfD for further discussion. — Voice of Clam (talk)13:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstating BLP violations is rather bad though. If you don't believe the article should be outright deleted, then it should be edited and the earlier reversions revdel'ed. If murder accusations aren't severe enough, then why do we even have a BLP policy? Fram (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my reasons for declining the speedy above. I agree there were BLP violations, but in my opinion the article was salvageable by removing the offending material rather than nuking the whole thing. However I'm not going to revert the deletion. — Voice of Clam (talk)17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the G10 without doing anything at all about the BLP violations. You reinstated severe BLP violations without batting an eyelid. I hope next time something like this happens you will act differently. Fram (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idid remove them, you reverted me. What an utterly disgraceful reply. If you don´t have the time to properly deal with BLP violations, then leave it to someone else completely, but don´t reinstate them and leave your shit for others to clean. Fram (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
