User talk:Stephen/Archive April 2008

Thomas Kuntz?

I'd like to submit an article for Thomas Kuntz, I was sure he already had one, but saw you deleted it. I would just like to know what specifically I can avoid- IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER RULES already. He's a very notable artist and I would like for him to have a page, and if it was a copy write thing, I don't understand why it wasn't just edited and deleted instead. Please reply. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeldrool (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a deleted Kuntz article in my logs? --Step hen 06:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, when I went to the create an article for Thomas Kuntz it said it was recently deleted by you. weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeldrool (talk • contribs) 07:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Thomas kuntz, with the lower case. It was non-notable and a copyvio. If you can write it yourself, assert notability and have good references there's no issue in its recreation. --Step hen 01:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet accusations

I have an interest in high performance computing, and while looking over the supercomputer cat I came across an article on auto-sequencing memory. The article was obviously written by someone who's primary language was not English, so I went to their talk page to invite them to work with me on improving the article. Somewhat to my surprise, I found a sock block notice. I then followed the edit histories to find that you had only posted an explanation about the block here, even though a single click demonstrated that the account in question had not been used for the better part of a year.

After examining the user's contributions, I could not find anything that would remotely require a block, let alone a permanent one. Far from it, they have added significantly to a niche area while also making a number of other positive edits in unrelated fields. I cannot for the life of me find a single bad-faith edit by any one of these accounts. Even if one is to assume the editor is Reiner Hartenstein, if the article in question is a problem someone should have mentioned it to him and explained why it was a problem.

In spite of this, you permanently blocked several of his accounts, including the active one, without warning. When the editor offered a perfectly reasonable explaination, you did not follow up.

Unless you have worthy objections, I am going to re-instate the user's editing privs, remove the sock notices from the pages in question, and offer an apology.

Maury (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was an over-reaction. I have rescinded the blocks, removed notices, apologised and emailed the editor to ask that they return and offering any help they need. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Step hen 05:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not following up on this. Thanks for your attention to this! Maury (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Dog

Hello! :) In March 2008, Moon Dog (Dungeons & Dragons) was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Step hen 05:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir - much appreciated. :) BOZ (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]