![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
... You started it ... I'm just following through on it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 03:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Laser jammer}} WP:WLNO Edit wars inappropriate links being posted by 67.160.23.39 and 173.10.94.201 which I believe are sock puppet accounts of the same user who owns the domain laserjammertests.com, he has been warned and continues to post inappropriate links and engage in edit wars. Please help thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.193.69 ( talk) 05:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
A chara, could you have a look at this here. I can not understand how nothing can be done to stop the disruption. -- Domer48 'fenian' 10:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sound a chara, it has been going on since at least January.-- Domer48 'fenian' 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I never saw the discussion because I didn't know the article existed, but someone created an article for the current Grand Master of Masons in MA. WP:Freemasonry has had a longstanding consensus that GMs are not notable for only being GMs, and now I'm having a real problem keeping the bio info out of the GL of MA article. The article is about the Grand Lodge, not an individual Grand Master, and most GMs have no other claim to fame. So how do we go about fixing the problem? In short, the article should have been deleted, not merged. MSJapan ( talk) 21:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the block on UB Alumni ( talk · contribs). Do you think there is also a username and WP:Role account issue? Cirt ( talk) 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your drafting of the "rough page," "advancing a reasoning on why and how a policy for removing administrator privileges might be proposed."
|
Thank you - I shall place it upon my userpage immediately. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My experience is that it would be best if an Administrator who's an editor in a disputed article were prevented from applying disciplinary action when s/he has a vested interest in the Article remaining according to her/his views. Case in point: me. I'm currently Restricted from nine (9) articles concerning this main one: historical revisionism. The Restricting administrator contributed significantly to the content of this extremely controversial article. The instant he determined he didn't like my editing, he simply Restricted me. Not only that, but since I didn't take it lying down, like a good obedient dog, he appointed himself my truant officer and effectively put me on "probation." I think he's actually Wiki-hounding me. Of course, I do have a "dark" past. But that I think may be due to my past Good faith ignorance of Wiki culture. I've learned much over the years on how to be a better Wikipedian. However, each time I get better, the goal gets even harder. It's somewhat like the Olympics I guess. But it would be good if one's Past were not so heavily used to evaluate the Present. I'm still thinking about how "convicted" Wiki "criminals" ought to be treated on their return. Perhaps there should be a rule not to use the Past to analyze the Present in a Talk page of any Content article. Past "misconduct" should only be discussed outside of an Article's Talk page. It should not even be raised on an individual's Talk page without permission to do so. I hope these observations are helpful to you in your effort to improve the Administration of Wikipedia. Have a nice day. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 11:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This was uncalled for. When someone like this gets blocked, we should never give them any leverage in their unblock requests. Unfortunately for you, I think you owe him an apology. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
ANI has been protected for over two hours now. Isn't that more than enough time to exclude every single IP and new editor? It isn't as though we have an alternative, as AN is also protected. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 04:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard vanU, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Grey column has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '(+ citation -tag &c.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a user requesting unblocking. Apparently, you blocked them for 9999 hours (per this and this) for vandalism. The user is now requesting unblock, noting that only two of their edits were unconstructive. I can't read that blog (it doesn't like my browser, apparently), so could you have a look? Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
On the talk page for WP:Policy and guidelines I have proposed rewording the small section that describes what a policy is in order to remove the present language that can be inferred as policy being what should be done in every case by every user. The new language I have proposed (with so far no particular wording set in stone yet) would make it clear that policy is not a "coookie-cutter" solution to every problem, they arent laws strictly adhered to, consensus can override policy, and IAR is paramount. I think your comment on the ANI succinctly and concisely put it, whereas my wording is quite....wordy. Your comment was, and I hope I got it right,- Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. I was wondering if you would like to comment on the talk page with your view, so far it seems two or three have commented that I cant really see that they object but their comments dont seem to endorse either, and one editor has posted in vehement opposition and thinks that our policies are in fact laws, just of a different name. I think, especially for newbies we make it clear on that page that our questioning policies and evolving them is good, we want new blood to come in and find new ways of doing things, push the boundaries, and in the spirit of IAR improve Wikipedia even if it means breaking a "rule". Camelbinky ( talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"Please note that I have indef blocked arad, Xashaiar and Nepaheshgar for their disregard of WP policy and their concerted efforts to have ChrisO blocked for attempting to apply policy in their contentious editing." I reformatted this comment because you had somehow transcluded said users' userpages by mistake. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to my comments on the users' talk page,I have unblocked Nepaheshgar. The user apologized and promised not to do it again. That being said, I will say that the whole sequence did not assuage popular concerns that some rules are only for some. Chris O crossed a bright line in a poor cause and was instantly unblocked. Nepaheshgar was accused of an undefined offense, and was blocked indefinitely. The appearance is poor. Note that I do not say that there was any impropriety, I am talking about how it might look to an uninvolved editor, especially with Chris jumping back in and urging that the block being maintain. Thank you for your hard work to improve Wikipedia.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard vanU. Xashaiar ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sandstein 06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC) (See also the comments on my talk page.) Sandstein 06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This edit got me confused, is it allowed? -- Dave1185 ( talk) 14:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I would like to be unblocked please. Please could you delete my Samlaptop85213 account and all other accounts related to Samlaptop85213 and I will start over with nice, constructive edits. This is a promise. I made this promise to a Forum administrator, and he doesn't want any spamming on his forum. He told me that if I do spam and missbehave because they need to keep a sustainable behavior, you will be permanatley banned. I am on probation for a year on their forum. So it would be gratefull if you could do what I said, and I will create a new account here, on Wikipedia (Samlaptop) and I will make constructive edits and if Majorly is reading this, I will make constructive edits on Simple Wikipedia as well with my new Samlaptop account.
Thanks, Samlaptop85213 -- 89.243.4.23 ( talk) 15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I was on the point of deleting the sub-section, 'References in popular culture' in her article, before pausing and seeking a second opinion. To me, a better sub-heading would be 'Trivia, twaddle and complete infantile bollocks'. Apart from being hopelessly without a single reference, it strikes me that even with several it would still look more like Facebook, MySpace or Twitter rather than Encyclopedia Britannica. The overall quality of her article has had me in apoplexy for ages, although more generally in recent times it is being improved. However, I thought prudence the better part of .... whatever, and would much value your views. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 21:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This comment was recently added on the discussion page. "lots of syntax and grammar shit" "sloppy". "it really needs some reworking or at least correction of all the syntax stuff so it'll look more professional and cohesive." [ link]
Carliertwo ( talk) 18:00, 23 october 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to get in the middle of anything, but I think there is WP support for linking certain cities and not mentioning the surrounding state or other political division. This is true of certain US cities ([ [3]]), but cities in many other countries are also listed. — John Cardinal ( talk) 13:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like an opinion; I can't find anything specific at WP:MOS, but I feel that my edits are consistent with consensus, or at the very least, with lack of objections. When mentioning place names in the UK in an infobox (BLP, for example), do you feel that is it really necessary to include "United Kingdom"? For England I usually include town, county and constituent country - Huncoat, Lancashire, England - or for Greater London - Shepherd's Bush, London, England - but omit "UK" or "United Kingdom". Likewise for other places - Glasgow, Scotland, eg, but no "UK". How much information is appropriate? Radiopathy •talk• 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! Thank you for filing an
Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from
76.15.216.153. We wanted to let you know that the case has been opened and is currently under investigation.
GrooveDog •
i'm groovy.
00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, LessHeard vanU. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Happy birthday, and welcome to the club! — John Cardinal ( talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for helping me with persistent vandals and disruptive editors in the past, always in a fair and objective manner! -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 14:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Jezebel'sPonyo
shhh has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Hi there, LHVU. We've asked similar questions, and the hunt is on for ways of rationalising the huge list of questions. Here are both:
I wonder whether we can find a new wording that we could co-sign. What u think? Here's the thematic presentation that may form the basis for how the GQs are eventually set out. Tony (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should have explained why I removed linked content of the page Kurdistan Workers' Party. The page had and after your edit has again a link to Administrative reforms against terrorism. I have nominated this page for deletion (you can see that at the top of the page). Reasons for that can be found on the page created to discuss the suggestion for deletion. So far, there has been no objection and my comment I left on the talk page of the article as long ago as 3 September 2009 has not triggered any comment either. That is why I decided to remove the linked text before it will get red colour. In any case, the text that you "installed" again is misleading. There are and never were administrative reforms in Turkey against terrorism. Measures against terrorism were predominantly taken in military terms and to some degree in legislation. One such specific law is the Anti-Terror Law (Law 3713 of April 1991), mentioned on Anti-terrorism_legislation#Turkey, but by no means described adequately. Martial law and state of emergency in Turkey were introduced at times of a civil war at the end of the 1970s and some special forces such as Jandarma İstihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele and Özel tim-Özel Harekat Timi (Special Team) (another bad article) are part of the Deep state (this article is better, but needs improvement as well). Put into historical context you would also have to mention Counter-Guerrilla. I should better stop here and just ask you whether you agree that I had a point in deleting linked text? Sc.helm ( talk) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course, no offence caused :) I just thought that it's sheer length would cause Jimbo to revert it anyway, as it has no real summary. But, of course, we should let Jimbo decide. My apologies, Skinny87 ( talk) 20:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I realize that Jimbo is a "court of appeal", but that huge post on his talk page is not necessary. A reasonably short statement by the "appellant" with a link to the page with the parties, statements, evidence, etc., is sufficient. — Finell (Talk) 20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page)
Hi LessHeard. I'm puzzled by your block of 195.30.17.81. It seems to be because he's a "sockpuppet" of a blocked user, "Magyar nem ember". However, as I understand it, the username was blocked as offensive, and, username aside, the user hadn't received more than warnings. I quote User talk:Magyar nem ember: "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below)." (The page says nothing about editing while not logged in.) True, somebody who was obviously the same person then made the mistake of reinventing the username with the addition of a "1" at the end; this new name was quickly and rightly blocked. But if this renders this editor an instantly blockable puppetmaster, this should at the least be explained on the talk page. (I might add that I have no high regard for the contributions of this editor.) -- Hoary ( talk) 02:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello - again. I know from the article's discussion page, that you once made a comment about trying to improve the Wiki article. After months of bleating myself about the lack of references etc., I am finally getting round to trying to upgrade it. Would you be interested in helping me ? No offence if it is no longer a priority in your life. I was more a Sweet and T. Rex fan at the time, I seem to remember - but what the hell. Dear old Noddy and co deserve far better than the present article. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 22:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you are correct. Actually, the longer you stay around Wiki's pop music articles (in all their many genres), the same user names keep cropping up again and again. Normally this is good news, because the vast majority of them add quality. Don't get me started on the IP addresses, who normally (not always, it must be said) add dross upon dross. Anyway back to Slade for me - Cum On Feel the Noize ! Regards,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a spot of bother with an editor who has a problem with plagiarism, and accuses me (in no uncertain words) of practising it. I would appreciate your input on this, as Cynthia's article is up for a GA review, and would never pass with "This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (November 2009)" tag on it. Hey-ho...-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Now I know why you are an admin, and I could never be. Brilliantly written and very well said (with the unfortunate truth being explicitly stated for both sides of this dispute). I thank you. Maybe this can now be sorted out.-- andreasegde ( talk) 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments on my talk page. -- C. A. Russell ( talk) 06:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be no , but there should be :-) Thanks and cheers,
DVdm (
talk)
21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You put a three month block on 62.254.173.97 in February, for resuming non constructive editing, the 11th editing block on the user! As he/her has now resumed vandalising again, with seven edits today alone, could you possibly place a longer term block on the IP address. The one prior to yours was for six months? Richard Harvey ( talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly possible that you are right here. But it could also be that this is a reference to General Tojo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
There is an extremely obnoxious vandal and sockpuppeteer whose original account was called User:General Tojo. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/General Tojo for some of the background. Because this was one of the earlier chronic pain-in-the-neck sockmasters, the name is referred to sometimes by editors who were around back then as an archetype of sockdom, a la referencing "Willy on Wheels" as a reference to vandals. I am sure the comment on ANI referred to this, and not at all to the historical General Tojo. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
This was deleted within (I think) 5 hours. Could you undelete/move to my user space, along with it's talk page? I will be using this abuse of process (in my view) in ArbCom. Hope you can help. Cheers. HarryAlffa ( talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes people write little things about themselves in WP that make me say, "Ya, me too!" I took typing in high-school ( I thought it would help my guitar playing...) when all of my buddies were down the hall making "happy birthday cards" using BASIC and COBOL punchcard programs. Like, hundreds of punchcards to write "Happy Birthday." So wasteful....
I know of a small machine shop that still runs punchcard machines. It all looks so "ricky-tick" compared to modern processes. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 03:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
...I've been involved for all of two hours or so, after I saw the original ANI request. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Not being as forgiving as Floquenbeam...": Not really; it's just that a stern warning is the most powerful weapon I have in my arsenal. :) Good block. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear. It kills me that the instigators of this project refuse to consider that sting ops might possibly be controversial. "Arbcom approves, so how are you complain?" Ridiculous. This is not the War on Drugs. This is an encyclopedia. This also isn't a self-esteem writing project. I like to think we are here for the readers. Keeping fake crap articles around longer so we don't offend fake people who can't write is so beyond logical it makes my head hurt. Auntie E. 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_The_Troubles
No need to respond, just notifying you of the request made by Elonka. Sswonk ( talk) 05:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there is an open ArbCom case request lodged by Mobile historian and I see you've indef'd them for block evasion. I have to gather the details so I can close the case (I'm a clerk). Can you direct me to the SPI or other investigation/discussion associated with this block? Cheers Manning ( talk) 23:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Less. I am evaluating this user's unblock request. Could you post a summary explanation of why you think this user is a sock puppet? If indeed they are, that information may be helpful to future administrators. In any case, it will help minimize disruption. I believe Checkuser would not be helpful in this case due to staleness, but I may ask a CU to verify that. Thank you very much, Jehochman Talk 14:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've pointed out this new information to Checkuser. Could you consider doing two things, which I can help with:
Best regards, Jehochman Talk 15:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, it looks like our friend is back at it with User:Nemesis029, a new account whose edits to date involve vandalism and edit warring on the Maltese nobility article [11] [12] [13] [14] and tinkering with my user page [15]. RGTraynor 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I happened upon it just as I was about to log off for the day.The user probably would have gotten away with it if they hadn't changed the same stats multiple times. Not so sneaky after all...Cheers again, -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 14:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Go on ahead and change the protection level of my talk page for three months. My RFA failed. The nominator withdraws the nomination..-- Zink Dawg -- 00:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd opened a SPI on it just so that there is a central location given that the paperwork has been all around the place, and shortly before I did, CU confirmed it was Naadapriya. While I was away, you helped get some more evidence, which was also material to the investigation. I'm very grateful for your help (as always). :) Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yo, LHvU. As an ACE coordinator (and, incidentally, a fellow Cla68 admirer), I wonder if you would consider reducing the temperature of hell you've given Mr. Z-man here? I'm not sure it's warranted given that he does not seem to have made any appraisal of Cla68's history specifically. A gentler rebuke might have a better chance of convincing, and less likelihood to open old wounds and entrench divisions. Cheers, Skomorokh, barbarian 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers guv'. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to Gorizont article and my interaction with Bc. Forgive me for long correspondence with Bc but I really need some help here. User talk:Betacommand/20091101#Gorizont (newspaper) confirmation links were removed Thanks in advance.-- Михаил Дмитриев ( talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Again! This IP:- User talk:195.195.28.4 (Kirklees College) has recently been allowed editing priveleges again, after a 12 month Schoolblock. Regrettably their education has not improved and vandalising Wiki Articles is again the standard recreational agenda. Is there any chance you could put them back in detention for a further 12 months? Richard Harvey ( talk) 16:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this, as it's simply not true. If you repost it, could you please make sure you write it so that it's entirely accurate, with diffs if you're making allegations. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 20:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I was about to block this IP for six months - if you look at the contribs, it's a static IP who likes to vandalize Chicago- and baseball-related articles. You blocked for a week, which I think is too short. Whaddya think? Tan | 39 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for applying a bit of common sense by blocking Ted Didlio. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 21:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I think the following list of Tiscali IP addresses are used by the same editor, due to the nature of the vandalism edits to the same article, Kirklees College, which is virtually the only article edited:-
Is it possible to put a range block on IP's if they are found to be the same user? Richard Harvey ( talk) 09:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Adding it once and then reverting once after discussion at AN/I had been resolved is not an edit war. All I did was place an accurate template on a page of someone who was blocked indefinitely, which is not a violation of policy. Administrators are just regular editors with extra tools, not overlords with special rights to issue blocks to people they're angry with, or to place templates on pages (or else that template would be locked down and available only to admins). After Sarek's second revert of me, I ceased reverting and discussed it on his talk page instead. Now I have dropped the matter entirely. NThen here you come some 7 hours later issuing threats on my talk page to block me? If you want to be a tough guy then just "abuse your sysop privileges", block me and get it over with already. I can find other things to do than edit Wikipedia. Do people really wonder why articles like this [16] are being written? <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( talk) 17:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 06:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you undelete User:DuncanHill/Cornwall type localities as another editor has said he would find it useful? Thanks. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
" . . . copper sheathed Jimbo"? I wish I had said that first. Bielle ( talk) 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I was pruning my watchlist, and I discovered that Frank Joseph Haas is a redirect via merge to Grand Lodge of West Virginia#Lawsuit. The bio article was created solely from the content of a New York Times article on a lawsuit Haas filed. A short while later, it was decided to merge the content and create the redirect.
That merge was over a year ago, but the content it points to has since been deleted as UNDUE (as a 2008 lawsuit it being the bulk of the article was felt to be not representative of a group that dates back to 1863). Is the redirect therefore eligible for deletion, even though it was from a merge? MSJapan ( talk) 20:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
One of the things that somewhat irks me is that Freemasonry is a main article for not only a category, but also an entire WikiProject, and yet it's not even GA. I'd like to try again, but there's a "polarity problem" - it seems that we're either overcited or undercited (which I'm not too sure how to fix, because gioing either way doesn't actually solve the problem). Moreover, people take issue with "Masonic" sources (but where else one is going to find copious amounts of reliable information I have no idea). Now, there are plenty of areas where material by the group is acceptable to explain the official positions of the group, but is there a citable policy on that, and again, if we have no other sources, how do we solve the problem? MSJapan ( talk) 23:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I must say I am rather disappointed in the decision to un-ban a convicted (in the sense of being proven) socker, who created many socks to make a point about his non-complience with Wikipedia rules and regulations, and would rather engage in edit warring rather than conflict resolution. I wish the ruling can be reversed, but that won't be fair to anyone, and sets a bad precedent as well.
Is there anything we need to do, or we need to be aware of? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 06:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia due to his consistent defamatory accusations about fellow Wikipedians -- calling editors pedophiles and pedo-pushers, all because he does not grasp the difference between it and ephebophilia (for whatever mind-boggling reason). He additionally has a specific "hate on" for me, as though I am some pedophile, despite my contributions to the Pedophilia article and comments on its talk page clearly showing that I am in no way a pedophile and am very much against pedophiles. My edits to that article and talk page show that I have consistently combated actual pedophile-pushers, and yet Raven in Orbit treats me as a pedophile villain.
Though Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia, he has come back to harass me twice now. Once seen in this link, which was reverted by editor Legitimus (also seen in that link), and now more recently in a discussion on my talk page you happened to be involved in. I see that he has even edited his user page to state defamatory remarks about why he left Wikipedia.
What should I do about this person in regards to Wikipedia? Luckily, I have not experienced any email harassment from him. If I have, I missed it. But I could stop the email harassment if that was going on. There does not seem to be anything that I can do to stop this harassment regarding Wikipedia. But as I stated to Legitimus, " I am beyond tired of this troll, even though I have not heard from him in months. I do not take well whatsoever to being called a pedophile or a pedophile-pusher."
Any help you can offer on this matter would be much appreciated by me. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking this user. The user's editings to WMAZ-TV will need to be admin reverted. An anon tried to revert and only got the last edit, there are several edits that are vandalism and I can't revert them. If you could, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Holidays to you and yours...-- Buster7 ( talk) 11:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
...you spare me the "helpful" advice and buy yourself a good Penguin dictionary. DocKino ( talk) 00:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I see you have blocked User_talk:84.236.3.2, and if I'm not mistaken, I think you blocked him/her for removing content from their own talk page. If that is the reason, I think you should read WP:REMOVE, which states that removing content from their user page is taken as evidence that it has been read. The only thing users may not remove from their talk page is block/declined unblock templates while they are blocked, and this IP hasn't been doing that, so if I am correct on the reason you blocked him/her, I think he/she should be unblocked. Thank you. -- Ha dg er 19:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Would it be appropriate to block this new editor:- MarkSykesPhotography? All his edits are links to his own photography website, hosted on zenfolio.com, one of which was a reversion of the removal of his first link to the website. Richard Harvey ( talk) 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Less, sorry to break the perma ban I had to request myself in order to be left in peace by certain persons and bother you again, but some poor soul has been wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of me, by a couple of "the usual suspects". This is not fair, it's just a slur on the user concerned, and on myself, there wasn't even a proper sock check run...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph/Archive
User:Alamanth had nothing, whatsoever to do with me, and this is the first I have heard of him/her, today, check the actual pathways and I feel sure you will find that out. I have no sockpuppets. I also REALLY think it is time someone put a stop to User:Penbat's more abstract capacity for equal misinformation, he is filling up psyhology articles with left of field nonsense, most of which is, at best, a considerable distortion of any source he cites, and, at worse simply made up off the top of his head.
This is horrible stuff, targetting a totally innocent stranger just because they challenged him signed - The REAL Zeraeph -- 109.79.193.159 ( talk) 10:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
PS Merry Christmas
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 21:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
May this season bring you joy and cheer Mark! Even if that picture on your userpage scares the shit out of me
... I hope you enjoy this season! --
Coffee //
have a cup //
ark //
02:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
He just added some sock puppet looking thing onto my talk page. Can you please tell me what a sock puppet is?( MDesjardinss ( talk) 19:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC))
Oh ok, I gotcha there. I have been for 4 or 5 years been anonymous, but I moved about 5 or 6 months ago, so my IP changed, but thanks for the advice and I wish you a Merry Christmas, seeing it is Christmas already where you are.( MDesjardinss ( talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 23:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know it was Internet-speak. Definitely not my day! MajorStovall ( talk) 18:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right on all counts. Thanks. -- MajorStovall ( talk) 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
A gerund too! Will wonders never cease. BTW, on another subject, in the discussion above on my page, we discuss a Pakistani politician whose page was vandalized. It appeared to be an attack page, so I marked for speedy deletion. That was an error, because it was originally a conventional biography, but it was turned into an attack page six days ago and nobody noticed! Amazing, isn't it? He's a tribal leader in Pakistan. It could have set off WWIII, I kid you not. MajorStovall ( talk) 20:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
As one of the guys around here who I respect the most, could I ask you to post User:Hiberniantears/AdministratorCommunityFeedback over at Wikipedia Review? I rip the site quite a bit, but I realize there are still a good number of very solid editors who post there who's insight I would appreciate greatly. No worries if you decline, but I'd appreciate the wider feedback and I don't have an account over there (I just tried to register to post this myself, but I don't meet the email requirements). Hiberniantears ( talk) 00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. What a poor introduction~! I apologize, I've been trying to catch up on uploading photos since the Christmas break.. mea culpa regarding the photo. Glad you caught it, and thank you for behaving with such courtesy. -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 20:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you blocked that anon Special:Contributions/69.159.197.246. However, can you please extend the block period? The anon is a sockpupper of User:InkHeart (a user banned for abusing multiple accounts), and even admits to it here. For the past few months, InkHeart has been avoiding blocks to make unconstructive and vandal edits to numerous articles, and other sockpuppets of hers were blocked yesterday. Thanks. Ω pho is 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Here you go, as promised. I'll take the one on the left. MastCell Talk 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In relation to your full protection of Abdurrahman Wahid, don't you think that perhaps semi-protection is more appropriate, when it is obvious that it is IP editors who are doing the vandalism, e.g. [17]. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to semi-protect the article, so that established editors can continue to edit the article. It does seem a tad unusual that an article relating to a current death is fully protected, when we know that WP is used as a source for info, and there are editors who wish to add this info to the article. Can you please review. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Consensus -- the way things are done and have always been done on Wikipedia, period/full-stop -- and common sense are that indefinitely blocked users who are, you know, actually blocked permanently get the {{ indef}} tag only, and that indefinitely blocked users who are actually blocked permanently don't get memorial pages or their wishes for self-advertising/spam granted. Would care to point to some policy, guideline, or finalized discussion that indicates otherwise? Or shall I have to dig up the policies, guidelines, and/or finalized discussions that restate the obvious? -- Calton | Talk 14:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Calton please be civil. 67.232.52.146 ( talk) 16:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
... for your swift action concerning JoeDG and his creator. Cheers & Happy 2010! - DVdm ( talk) 19:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You just have to imagine me being drunk shouting that in your face. (Note, I'm not drunk) but I wanted to send you a happy new years video which is coincidently my the song from which I got my username.! Happy Wishes to you in 2010.[ [18]] Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 00:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that the IP was somewhat uncivil, many of the AfDs linked were indeed speedy/snow keeps. JBsupreme is involved in an ongoing ArbCom case because of similar issues— not on music but on software AfDs. Please advise the IP to submit any evidence to the ongoing ArbCom case, either to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence or by email if he doesn't want to register an account. Strangely nobody mentioned this on WP:AN. Pcap ping 06:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I should receive an award for attacking that horrible "coldplay" rock group, whose popularity must be based upon hooking up with McDonalds or Holiday Inn, because that seems to be how music groups get attention in the USA, if they go to bed with some big corporation.
That other editor had the nerve to revoke my edits of a Russian female musician even though he admits limited musical knowledge. Somebody needs to remove the tags from that listing and leave it alone. It would make me very mad to see that listing removed, as some have threatened, that would be the ultimate sin. I mean, this whole notability issue is just senseless. "coldplay" is notable for selling records, not quality, and somehow Wikipedia needs to pay more attention to quality, less attention to whether or not a rock musician sells a lot of t-shirts at a Wal-mart in Iowa lol Hell, if Wikipedia lists an artist who only sold one CD, and that CD is high quality, something far superior to "coldplay," then I say, list the musician who sold one CD, and erase "coldplay."
You seem like you might "get it," you seem like somebody who might have some common sense, although your photo sure is strange.
MostFamousPeopleUSA ( talk) 10:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for coming back and reconsidering my block. I know you didn't have to so I do appreciate it. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not agree with you blocking me and not blocking others - neither did I agree with you getting upset about me removing the IP identifier on my talk page, and I certainly didn't agree with you removing my right to edit my own talk page (neither did the admin who gave me that right back) - more details are on my talk page, I would appreciate it if you went there and explained a few things.
thanks 119.173.81.176 ( talk) 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.209.186.241 You blocked him for three months warning him it'd be longer if he did this again, which of course, he now has.
Previously he used various IP addresses, and is doing it once again, word for word, same exact information re-added in two articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.233.6.101 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Age_of_Empires_II:_The_Age_of_Kings&action=history
He used two other IP address to do minor work on it, including the 76.209.186.241 address you previously blocked and warned, which had put the bulk of the information there before. [19]
67.233.6.101 76.209.186.241 125.60.241.96 Dream Focus 06:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering why you didn't inform
User:Cs32en that he was blocked? Or why not fulling protect the page, or block
User:UrukHaiLoR for edit warring as well?
Grsz
11
19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
For your good work.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Elmer Ellsworth has twice added Latin vulgarity to the Spanish Inquisition article, which I have undone. I tried to report it at the "Report Vandals Here" window but I probably messed it up. Since you seemed to handle the previous timed request, I thought I'd ask if I did it right. I'm terrible with tools!-- Buster7 ( talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.........-- Buster7 ( talk) 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against UrukHaiLoR ( talk · contribs). This account very likely is a sockpuppet of Top Gun ( talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely for "lying about sources, in addition to a whole host of other sins". Cs32en 02:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that you do not with to comment on my recent block.
You were wrong in preventing me from editing my own talk page (another admin gave me back that right
You were wrong to complain about me removing the IP identifier (I had already brought this up on ANI and had been told I could remove it)
You were wrong to block me and not block any of the other IP editors or registered editors for edit warring.
I thought that once you realised your mistakes, you might try to explain your actions, or apologise to me - even when I have been blocked in the past, the blocking admin has been polite enough to explain the block and answer any questions that I had, you just remove any method that I had to communicate with you and force me to email other admins - when you removed my talk page editing ability due to your own mistake.
I deserve an explanation and I am looking forward to your response. 119.173.81.176 ( talk) 05:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone unilaterally renamed the record company EMI to EMI Group Ltd. Of course, the company has been known for decades as EMI and is the best known EMI as there is an EMI disambig page. Can you check this out and revert the renaming if necessary? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not tooe sure if this is not allowed but one of the articles I authored is undergoing AFD. Sister Vincenza. I have outlined why she passes single event notability. Right now we seem to be split between merge and keep. Can you weigh in one way or the other? Also on a side note..[ [23]]. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You banned Das Ansehnlisch ( talk · contribs) the other day. He is now evading the ban by editing under the 216.100.93.130 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is typical behavior on his part. Can you ban the IP? Also, would you add a notice to his regular account page about his block/ban evading so future admins will know about it if/when he is ever considered for reinstatement? Thanks a million. — John Cardinal ( talk) 19:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't really know each other, so I hope you don't mind me bothering you! I was hoping someone could provide a little clarity for me, because I'm second-guessing myself. I placed speedy tags on the pages ABC on TV and The Living Model EP, because as far as I understand, they're eligible under CSD A9. I was just kinda wondering if you, almost definitely having a better understanding of deletion policy than me, could maybe help me stop worrying about getting yelled at for doing it wrong. :x Audiosmurf ♪/ ♫ 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Last February, you semi-protected this article indefinitely, as it was coming under a great deal of attention from anon IPs making unconstructive edits. This was mainly due to the fact that the website in question had recently closed, and the anons were competing with each other to add their preferred 'successor sites'. However, in the year since then, it has received little attention from vandals, and the issue seems to have died down. I believe that protection should be used as sparingly as possible, and removed when it's no longer necessary; and it looks to me like that might be the case on this page. I ask that you unprotect this article, at least for a trial period; if the high level of vandalism returns, it can always be protected again. Thanks in advance. Robofish ( talk) 22:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard vanU,
Another problem has emerged at Camp Chapman attack. On the face of it, it appears to be a content dispute. Phiont ( talk · contribs) does not want that the Afghan security director at the base is counted as killed in the attack, while I think that he should be counted as killed in the attack. (According to reliable sources, he was injured by the blast, an an American shot him dead as he thought the security director would be part of the plot. So the security director would not have been killed if the attack would not have taken place, so he was killed in the attack, as a result of friendly fire.)
In this edit summary, Phiont writes "Cs32en, please stop listing the base security director among the attacker's victims. He was not killed by the bomber." The Phiont account was created on Feb. 4, 2009, made five edits from Feb. 4, 2009, to March 3, 2009, one edit yesterday, and one today. The edits display a somewhat greater knowledge of Wikipedia than what one would expect from a really new user. Also, the fact that the account was dormant for about one year looks suspicious. However, there may be too few edits for a successful SPI. I have started a section for discussion at the article's talk page, but I wouldn't be surprised if the discussion does not lead to a consensus.
Do you have an advice on how I should proceed, both at the talk page and with regard to the account Phiont ( talk · contribs)?
Regards. Cs32en 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to seek your guidance in a dispute that I have been engaged in with User:Cs32en. [Disclaimer: I am new to the Wikipedia dispute resolution process]. I am asking for your guidance as you have been involved in adjudicating prior issues with User:Cs32en and thought that I'd seek the advice of someone familiar with the dispute resolution process prior to writing up a soporific bill of particulars.
My perception is that, in discussion with User:Cs32en ,I was the subject of an attempt at war of attrition, with a view toward making me go away, rather than an honest attempt at analyzing this issue(s) in dispute and the applicable Wikipedia policies. Where a person less stubborn and bloody minded than myself might have thrown their hands up in disgust, and gone off to find a better source of entertainment than Wikipedia editing, I elected to persist. It is my perception that User:Cs32en, not acting in good faith, simply wasted my time.
My goal is that such sanctions, as are necessary, be applied to User:Cs32en so that others will not have their, potentially productive, time wasted nor driven away in disgust from participation in Wikipedia. How should I proceed? Need I write-up the soporific bill of particulars? Deicas ( talk) 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
Verify credibility}}
template from a reference to a YouTube video in the article
9/11 Truth movement (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views).
Arthur Rubin (
talk ·
contribs) has
restored the template, and Deicas has
removed it again. I have then
restored the template, and Deicas has
removed the template again (some back and forth in between). I have discontinued the dispute, and Deicas got what he wanted, as the template is now removed from the article. Deicas should realize that he has removed the template against the position taken by two other editors, and that sanctions on his account would be appropriate. I have also indicated to Deicas that I do not intend to continue to discuss the issue with him. As the issue is currently settled, with the content preferred by Deicas prevailing, I do not feel under an obligation to do so. I also find it strange that Deicas does not mention the substance of the issue in his posting.
Cs32en
22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mark. Would it be possible block this obvious vandalism only account? See: Picklecloud. Richard Harvey ( talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Since I trust your judgement, although I know you don't take much part in image deletion discussions, could you take a look at this and tell me whether you think I'm out of order. Sorry if this screws your weekend, but I do despair at those who will not look beyond the surface. Cheers, and belated Happy New Year; I have to go back to hospital for more X-rays next week and am still on antibiotics and painkillers, but manage to be here in the absence of anything better. Regards. Rodhull andemu 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
There is so much puffery, that is the problem, and he is not a philosopher, not in any sense. This has been the problem throughout, that there is no realistic appraisal of him, no secondary sources who discuss him, and this despite all his efforts. If he really were notable, and given how keen he is to have a WP article, he'd have been able to arrange proper coverage for himself in a reliable source by now. But he hasn't, and that signals against notability, in my view.
I'm really not that keen in getting further involved, because the whole thing is so unseemly. The one issue I do care about is that he not be described as a philosopher or placed in that category, because that really would be quite false. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If someone was writing a Wikipedia Western (musical) ... and there was a character vaguely similar to LessHeard vanU ... what might be an archetypal musical theme song for said character (and preferred hat color, etc:) Proofreader77 ( interact) 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
As a currently editing, fair-minded and uninvolved administrator, could I ask you to pay some attention to the ongoing edit warring, brawling and mutual accusations here? I think administrator action is long overdue. Multiple parties are overstepping the bounds of civil discussion and editing. -- TS 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Do you agree? I just want the thoughts of the blocking admin before anything is acutally done. Thanks-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
GoRight ( talk · contribs) has requested that your attention be brought to this section, as they are currently blocked.
On an unrelated note, thank you very much for stepping in at the climate change probation. Having too few admins patrolling the area runs a high risk of losing touch with the norms of the community in general. I hope to see you around again; same goes for your talkpage watchers - an uninvolved opinion - admin or not - can be invaluable in cutting to the heart of a dispute or finding novel compromises. - 2/0 ( cont.) 08:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The "pasty of good humour" | |
For obvious reasons pablo hablo. 12:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
IP 86.14.32.100 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently voted in a straw poll at Talk:The Beatles, voting the same as a previous vote by TheStig118 ( talk · contribs), the only votes (so far) in favor of the proposal in question. As it turns out, TheStig118 had previously replaced an autosigned signature with his own on a previous edit by 86.14.32.100. This strongly suggests that 86.14.32.100 is a sock of TheStig118, and the poll vote by 86.14.32.100 was a deliberate attempt by TheStig118 to influence the outcome of a poll via a sock and thus distort consensus.
Can you look into this and impose a block on TheStig118 if you find that the evidence indicates that 86.14.32.100 is a sock puppet of TheStig118? Thanks. — John Cardinal ( talk) 14:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the point of your remark. The reason for my username was that I received an email from someone I know who said they looking for 'an editor with a background in philosophy'. So the username was a sort of joke. Hope that explains things. Editor with a background in philosophy ( talk) 18:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline, have posted it on the blocked editor's talk page. DuncanHill ( talk) 21:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You said Now, I have only been reviewing the edits since the above ip started complaining of the removal of their comments but I think that all parties including the ip have exceeded the 1RR restriction for content that is not vandalism. I'm not sure which 1RR restriction you're referring to - can you clarify this, please? William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It would appear that I am not alone in my belief [24] William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I would, however, be happy to support GW and t:GW being on 1RR restriction, though. Indeed I'd be happy for the Cl Ch probabtion as a whole being extended to 1RR William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
On a practical matter, the global warming talk page has been cluttered with off-topic nonsense, personal attacks, and discussion of the topic rather than improvements to make to the article for some time now. Your ruling leaves the clutterers feeling bold and I expect things will get worse before they get better.
In view of that, I would welcome your thoughts on how we are going to get talk:global warming back to containing only or mostly civil discussions on how to improve the article. -- TS 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit pissed about your blocks (already mentioned above), especially the one of Kenosis. Kenosis has been with us for 4 years, has over 20000 edits, many in contentious areas like gun control and intelligent design, without coming into any serious conflict with Wikipedia policy. Now you block him while under a misapprehension about 1RR and while ignoring the (cumbersome, I know) process laid out in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, which, among other things, states that Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. While I'm not a process wonk, I think you overreacted here. I would suggest that you retract this block (and possibly the McSly block, albeit he does not seem to mind to much), or at least ask for review at WP:ANI. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
As stephan says, your blundering here has not been at all helpful: [25] is part of the consequences. I think you should back off from all enforecement of these sanctions: you are clearly to busy to actually read the rules and find out what the sanctions actually are. We really don't need behaviour like this William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kenosis_and_LHVU William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
(undent) It appears that these block were not used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, but to punish users. We worry it seems about biting the newcomer but what about the long time contributor? Warning definitely should have been given first. Even vandals get warning and one often sees pages full of them with no blocks given. In an effort to not loss editors willing to contribute and add scientific balance to controversy article it might be a good idea to send an apology to all involved. Cheers from an uninvolved scientific mind. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
There's an article on Brandon Saller, the drummer for Atreyu. None of the other members have articles, or if they did, they have been redirected. Saller's article is sourced to only one source that doesn't meet RS (MySpace), so I redirected it, stating "Article has no RS, and no substantial edits since recreation. Redirecting back to Atreyu band article". That redirect was undone, with the statement that "article looks fine, and that's not a reason to redirect it".
I have no idea what the rationale is here, because I see a case of an unsourced article on an individual where the article's existence assumes inherited notability. The former precludes an article, and the latter violates policy. In any event, could you look this over as a third party in case I can't resolve this with the editor myself? MSJapan ( talk) 23:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard vanU! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
847 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 09:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just seen the most bizarre request at User talk:7107delicious. He says he has emailed you, but from the top of your talk page, I see that he might possibly be sending it to your old email address. So I thought I would draw your attention to it. If you do get the request, and it is a valid reason, could you let me know what it is please(if it isn't private)? I'm baffled as to what reason there is for renaming the acount and then blocking the new one! Stephen! Coming... 13:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Would you take a look here. I have a person that is trolling my page. [ [26]]. To my knowledge I do not know this person but they saw fit to come and make changes to my talkpage. I have asked them to refrain, just need a extra set of eyes to play referee. Hell In A Bucket ( talk)
[27] cuts to the heart of the issue. - 2/0 ( cont.) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I requested full protection for this article today and it appears to have been semi d by missie, would you could you please fully protect it for me? Off2riorob ( talk) 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, its this Susan Roesgen its been a constant tiresome pointy word revert for a few days. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Any chance that we could talk directly before I lift the block? You can find my contact information on my user page here. Thanks! Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
... You started it ... I'm just following through on it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 03:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Laser jammer}} WP:WLNO Edit wars inappropriate links being posted by 67.160.23.39 and 173.10.94.201 which I believe are sock puppet accounts of the same user who owns the domain laserjammertests.com, he has been warned and continues to post inappropriate links and engage in edit wars. Please help thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.193.69 ( talk) 05:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
A chara, could you have a look at this here. I can not understand how nothing can be done to stop the disruption. -- Domer48 'fenian' 10:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sound a chara, it has been going on since at least January.-- Domer48 'fenian' 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I never saw the discussion because I didn't know the article existed, but someone created an article for the current Grand Master of Masons in MA. WP:Freemasonry has had a longstanding consensus that GMs are not notable for only being GMs, and now I'm having a real problem keeping the bio info out of the GL of MA article. The article is about the Grand Lodge, not an individual Grand Master, and most GMs have no other claim to fame. So how do we go about fixing the problem? In short, the article should have been deleted, not merged. MSJapan ( talk) 21:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the block on UB Alumni ( talk · contribs). Do you think there is also a username and WP:Role account issue? Cirt ( talk) 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your drafting of the "rough page," "advancing a reasoning on why and how a policy for removing administrator privileges might be proposed."
|
Thank you - I shall place it upon my userpage immediately. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My experience is that it would be best if an Administrator who's an editor in a disputed article were prevented from applying disciplinary action when s/he has a vested interest in the Article remaining according to her/his views. Case in point: me. I'm currently Restricted from nine (9) articles concerning this main one: historical revisionism. The Restricting administrator contributed significantly to the content of this extremely controversial article. The instant he determined he didn't like my editing, he simply Restricted me. Not only that, but since I didn't take it lying down, like a good obedient dog, he appointed himself my truant officer and effectively put me on "probation." I think he's actually Wiki-hounding me. Of course, I do have a "dark" past. But that I think may be due to my past Good faith ignorance of Wiki culture. I've learned much over the years on how to be a better Wikipedian. However, each time I get better, the goal gets even harder. It's somewhat like the Olympics I guess. But it would be good if one's Past were not so heavily used to evaluate the Present. I'm still thinking about how "convicted" Wiki "criminals" ought to be treated on their return. Perhaps there should be a rule not to use the Past to analyze the Present in a Talk page of any Content article. Past "misconduct" should only be discussed outside of an Article's Talk page. It should not even be raised on an individual's Talk page without permission to do so. I hope these observations are helpful to you in your effort to improve the Administration of Wikipedia. Have a nice day. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 11:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This was uncalled for. When someone like this gets blocked, we should never give them any leverage in their unblock requests. Unfortunately for you, I think you owe him an apology. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
ANI has been protected for over two hours now. Isn't that more than enough time to exclude every single IP and new editor? It isn't as though we have an alternative, as AN is also protected. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 04:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard vanU, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Grey column has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '(+ citation -tag &c.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a user requesting unblocking. Apparently, you blocked them for 9999 hours (per this and this) for vandalism. The user is now requesting unblock, noting that only two of their edits were unconstructive. I can't read that blog (it doesn't like my browser, apparently), so could you have a look? Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
On the talk page for WP:Policy and guidelines I have proposed rewording the small section that describes what a policy is in order to remove the present language that can be inferred as policy being what should be done in every case by every user. The new language I have proposed (with so far no particular wording set in stone yet) would make it clear that policy is not a "coookie-cutter" solution to every problem, they arent laws strictly adhered to, consensus can override policy, and IAR is paramount. I think your comment on the ANI succinctly and concisely put it, whereas my wording is quite....wordy. Your comment was, and I hope I got it right,- Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. I was wondering if you would like to comment on the talk page with your view, so far it seems two or three have commented that I cant really see that they object but their comments dont seem to endorse either, and one editor has posted in vehement opposition and thinks that our policies are in fact laws, just of a different name. I think, especially for newbies we make it clear on that page that our questioning policies and evolving them is good, we want new blood to come in and find new ways of doing things, push the boundaries, and in the spirit of IAR improve Wikipedia even if it means breaking a "rule". Camelbinky ( talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"Please note that I have indef blocked arad, Xashaiar and Nepaheshgar for their disregard of WP policy and their concerted efforts to have ChrisO blocked for attempting to apply policy in their contentious editing." I reformatted this comment because you had somehow transcluded said users' userpages by mistake. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to my comments on the users' talk page,I have unblocked Nepaheshgar. The user apologized and promised not to do it again. That being said, I will say that the whole sequence did not assuage popular concerns that some rules are only for some. Chris O crossed a bright line in a poor cause and was instantly unblocked. Nepaheshgar was accused of an undefined offense, and was blocked indefinitely. The appearance is poor. Note that I do not say that there was any impropriety, I am talking about how it might look to an uninvolved editor, especially with Chris jumping back in and urging that the block being maintain. Thank you for your hard work to improve Wikipedia.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard vanU. Xashaiar ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sandstein 06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC) (See also the comments on my talk page.) Sandstein 06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This edit got me confused, is it allowed? -- Dave1185 ( talk) 14:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I would like to be unblocked please. Please could you delete my Samlaptop85213 account and all other accounts related to Samlaptop85213 and I will start over with nice, constructive edits. This is a promise. I made this promise to a Forum administrator, and he doesn't want any spamming on his forum. He told me that if I do spam and missbehave because they need to keep a sustainable behavior, you will be permanatley banned. I am on probation for a year on their forum. So it would be gratefull if you could do what I said, and I will create a new account here, on Wikipedia (Samlaptop) and I will make constructive edits and if Majorly is reading this, I will make constructive edits on Simple Wikipedia as well with my new Samlaptop account.
Thanks, Samlaptop85213 -- 89.243.4.23 ( talk) 15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I was on the point of deleting the sub-section, 'References in popular culture' in her article, before pausing and seeking a second opinion. To me, a better sub-heading would be 'Trivia, twaddle and complete infantile bollocks'. Apart from being hopelessly without a single reference, it strikes me that even with several it would still look more like Facebook, MySpace or Twitter rather than Encyclopedia Britannica. The overall quality of her article has had me in apoplexy for ages, although more generally in recent times it is being improved. However, I thought prudence the better part of .... whatever, and would much value your views. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 21:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This comment was recently added on the discussion page. "lots of syntax and grammar shit" "sloppy". "it really needs some reworking or at least correction of all the syntax stuff so it'll look more professional and cohesive." [ link]
Carliertwo ( talk) 18:00, 23 october 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to get in the middle of anything, but I think there is WP support for linking certain cities and not mentioning the surrounding state or other political division. This is true of certain US cities ([ [3]]), but cities in many other countries are also listed. — John Cardinal ( talk) 13:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like an opinion; I can't find anything specific at WP:MOS, but I feel that my edits are consistent with consensus, or at the very least, with lack of objections. When mentioning place names in the UK in an infobox (BLP, for example), do you feel that is it really necessary to include "United Kingdom"? For England I usually include town, county and constituent country - Huncoat, Lancashire, England - or for Greater London - Shepherd's Bush, London, England - but omit "UK" or "United Kingdom". Likewise for other places - Glasgow, Scotland, eg, but no "UK". How much information is appropriate? Radiopathy •talk• 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! Thank you for filing an
Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from
76.15.216.153. We wanted to let you know that the case has been opened and is currently under investigation.
GrooveDog •
i'm groovy.
00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, LessHeard vanU. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Happy birthday, and welcome to the club! — John Cardinal ( talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for helping me with persistent vandals and disruptive editors in the past, always in a fair and objective manner! -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 14:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Jezebel'sPonyo
shhh has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Hi there, LHVU. We've asked similar questions, and the hunt is on for ways of rationalising the huge list of questions. Here are both:
I wonder whether we can find a new wording that we could co-sign. What u think? Here's the thematic presentation that may form the basis for how the GQs are eventually set out. Tony (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should have explained why I removed linked content of the page Kurdistan Workers' Party. The page had and after your edit has again a link to Administrative reforms against terrorism. I have nominated this page for deletion (you can see that at the top of the page). Reasons for that can be found on the page created to discuss the suggestion for deletion. So far, there has been no objection and my comment I left on the talk page of the article as long ago as 3 September 2009 has not triggered any comment either. That is why I decided to remove the linked text before it will get red colour. In any case, the text that you "installed" again is misleading. There are and never were administrative reforms in Turkey against terrorism. Measures against terrorism were predominantly taken in military terms and to some degree in legislation. One such specific law is the Anti-Terror Law (Law 3713 of April 1991), mentioned on Anti-terrorism_legislation#Turkey, but by no means described adequately. Martial law and state of emergency in Turkey were introduced at times of a civil war at the end of the 1970s and some special forces such as Jandarma İstihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele and Özel tim-Özel Harekat Timi (Special Team) (another bad article) are part of the Deep state (this article is better, but needs improvement as well). Put into historical context you would also have to mention Counter-Guerrilla. I should better stop here and just ask you whether you agree that I had a point in deleting linked text? Sc.helm ( talk) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course, no offence caused :) I just thought that it's sheer length would cause Jimbo to revert it anyway, as it has no real summary. But, of course, we should let Jimbo decide. My apologies, Skinny87 ( talk) 20:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I realize that Jimbo is a "court of appeal", but that huge post on his talk page is not necessary. A reasonably short statement by the "appellant" with a link to the page with the parties, statements, evidence, etc., is sufficient. — Finell (Talk) 20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page)
Hi LessHeard. I'm puzzled by your block of 195.30.17.81. It seems to be because he's a "sockpuppet" of a blocked user, "Magyar nem ember". However, as I understand it, the username was blocked as offensive, and, username aside, the user hadn't received more than warnings. I quote User talk:Magyar nem ember: "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below)." (The page says nothing about editing while not logged in.) True, somebody who was obviously the same person then made the mistake of reinventing the username with the addition of a "1" at the end; this new name was quickly and rightly blocked. But if this renders this editor an instantly blockable puppetmaster, this should at the least be explained on the talk page. (I might add that I have no high regard for the contributions of this editor.) -- Hoary ( talk) 02:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello - again. I know from the article's discussion page, that you once made a comment about trying to improve the Wiki article. After months of bleating myself about the lack of references etc., I am finally getting round to trying to upgrade it. Would you be interested in helping me ? No offence if it is no longer a priority in your life. I was more a Sweet and T. Rex fan at the time, I seem to remember - but what the hell. Dear old Noddy and co deserve far better than the present article. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 22:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you are correct. Actually, the longer you stay around Wiki's pop music articles (in all their many genres), the same user names keep cropping up again and again. Normally this is good news, because the vast majority of them add quality. Don't get me started on the IP addresses, who normally (not always, it must be said) add dross upon dross. Anyway back to Slade for me - Cum On Feel the Noize ! Regards,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a spot of bother with an editor who has a problem with plagiarism, and accuses me (in no uncertain words) of practising it. I would appreciate your input on this, as Cynthia's article is up for a GA review, and would never pass with "This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (November 2009)" tag on it. Hey-ho...-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Now I know why you are an admin, and I could never be. Brilliantly written and very well said (with the unfortunate truth being explicitly stated for both sides of this dispute). I thank you. Maybe this can now be sorted out.-- andreasegde ( talk) 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments on my talk page. -- C. A. Russell ( talk) 06:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be no , but there should be :-) Thanks and cheers,
DVdm (
talk)
21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You put a three month block on 62.254.173.97 in February, for resuming non constructive editing, the 11th editing block on the user! As he/her has now resumed vandalising again, with seven edits today alone, could you possibly place a longer term block on the IP address. The one prior to yours was for six months? Richard Harvey ( talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly possible that you are right here. But it could also be that this is a reference to General Tojo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
There is an extremely obnoxious vandal and sockpuppeteer whose original account was called User:General Tojo. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/General Tojo for some of the background. Because this was one of the earlier chronic pain-in-the-neck sockmasters, the name is referred to sometimes by editors who were around back then as an archetype of sockdom, a la referencing "Willy on Wheels" as a reference to vandals. I am sure the comment on ANI referred to this, and not at all to the historical General Tojo. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
This was deleted within (I think) 5 hours. Could you undelete/move to my user space, along with it's talk page? I will be using this abuse of process (in my view) in ArbCom. Hope you can help. Cheers. HarryAlffa ( talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes people write little things about themselves in WP that make me say, "Ya, me too!" I took typing in high-school ( I thought it would help my guitar playing...) when all of my buddies were down the hall making "happy birthday cards" using BASIC and COBOL punchcard programs. Like, hundreds of punchcards to write "Happy Birthday." So wasteful....
I know of a small machine shop that still runs punchcard machines. It all looks so "ricky-tick" compared to modern processes. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 03:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
...I've been involved for all of two hours or so, after I saw the original ANI request. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Not being as forgiving as Floquenbeam...": Not really; it's just that a stern warning is the most powerful weapon I have in my arsenal. :) Good block. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear. It kills me that the instigators of this project refuse to consider that sting ops might possibly be controversial. "Arbcom approves, so how are you complain?" Ridiculous. This is not the War on Drugs. This is an encyclopedia. This also isn't a self-esteem writing project. I like to think we are here for the readers. Keeping fake crap articles around longer so we don't offend fake people who can't write is so beyond logical it makes my head hurt. Auntie E. 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_The_Troubles
No need to respond, just notifying you of the request made by Elonka. Sswonk ( talk) 05:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there is an open ArbCom case request lodged by Mobile historian and I see you've indef'd them for block evasion. I have to gather the details so I can close the case (I'm a clerk). Can you direct me to the SPI or other investigation/discussion associated with this block? Cheers Manning ( talk) 23:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Less. I am evaluating this user's unblock request. Could you post a summary explanation of why you think this user is a sock puppet? If indeed they are, that information may be helpful to future administrators. In any case, it will help minimize disruption. I believe Checkuser would not be helpful in this case due to staleness, but I may ask a CU to verify that. Thank you very much, Jehochman Talk 14:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've pointed out this new information to Checkuser. Could you consider doing two things, which I can help with:
Best regards, Jehochman Talk 15:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, it looks like our friend is back at it with User:Nemesis029, a new account whose edits to date involve vandalism and edit warring on the Maltese nobility article [11] [12] [13] [14] and tinkering with my user page [15]. RGTraynor 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I happened upon it just as I was about to log off for the day.The user probably would have gotten away with it if they hadn't changed the same stats multiple times. Not so sneaky after all...Cheers again, -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 14:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Go on ahead and change the protection level of my talk page for three months. My RFA failed. The nominator withdraws the nomination..-- Zink Dawg -- 00:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd opened a SPI on it just so that there is a central location given that the paperwork has been all around the place, and shortly before I did, CU confirmed it was Naadapriya. While I was away, you helped get some more evidence, which was also material to the investigation. I'm very grateful for your help (as always). :) Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yo, LHvU. As an ACE coordinator (and, incidentally, a fellow Cla68 admirer), I wonder if you would consider reducing the temperature of hell you've given Mr. Z-man here? I'm not sure it's warranted given that he does not seem to have made any appraisal of Cla68's history specifically. A gentler rebuke might have a better chance of convincing, and less likelihood to open old wounds and entrench divisions. Cheers, Skomorokh, barbarian 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers guv'. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to Gorizont article and my interaction with Bc. Forgive me for long correspondence with Bc but I really need some help here. User talk:Betacommand/20091101#Gorizont (newspaper) confirmation links were removed Thanks in advance.-- Михаил Дмитриев ( talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Again! This IP:- User talk:195.195.28.4 (Kirklees College) has recently been allowed editing priveleges again, after a 12 month Schoolblock. Regrettably their education has not improved and vandalising Wiki Articles is again the standard recreational agenda. Is there any chance you could put them back in detention for a further 12 months? Richard Harvey ( talk) 16:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this, as it's simply not true. If you repost it, could you please make sure you write it so that it's entirely accurate, with diffs if you're making allegations. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 20:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I was about to block this IP for six months - if you look at the contribs, it's a static IP who likes to vandalize Chicago- and baseball-related articles. You blocked for a week, which I think is too short. Whaddya think? Tan | 39 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for applying a bit of common sense by blocking Ted Didlio. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 21:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I think the following list of Tiscali IP addresses are used by the same editor, due to the nature of the vandalism edits to the same article, Kirklees College, which is virtually the only article edited:-
Is it possible to put a range block on IP's if they are found to be the same user? Richard Harvey ( talk) 09:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Adding it once and then reverting once after discussion at AN/I had been resolved is not an edit war. All I did was place an accurate template on a page of someone who was blocked indefinitely, which is not a violation of policy. Administrators are just regular editors with extra tools, not overlords with special rights to issue blocks to people they're angry with, or to place templates on pages (or else that template would be locked down and available only to admins). After Sarek's second revert of me, I ceased reverting and discussed it on his talk page instead. Now I have dropped the matter entirely. NThen here you come some 7 hours later issuing threats on my talk page to block me? If you want to be a tough guy then just "abuse your sysop privileges", block me and get it over with already. I can find other things to do than edit Wikipedia. Do people really wonder why articles like this [16] are being written? <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( talk) 17:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 06:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you undelete User:DuncanHill/Cornwall type localities as another editor has said he would find it useful? Thanks. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
" . . . copper sheathed Jimbo"? I wish I had said that first. Bielle ( talk) 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I was pruning my watchlist, and I discovered that Frank Joseph Haas is a redirect via merge to Grand Lodge of West Virginia#Lawsuit. The bio article was created solely from the content of a New York Times article on a lawsuit Haas filed. A short while later, it was decided to merge the content and create the redirect.
That merge was over a year ago, but the content it points to has since been deleted as UNDUE (as a 2008 lawsuit it being the bulk of the article was felt to be not representative of a group that dates back to 1863). Is the redirect therefore eligible for deletion, even though it was from a merge? MSJapan ( talk) 20:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
One of the things that somewhat irks me is that Freemasonry is a main article for not only a category, but also an entire WikiProject, and yet it's not even GA. I'd like to try again, but there's a "polarity problem" - it seems that we're either overcited or undercited (which I'm not too sure how to fix, because gioing either way doesn't actually solve the problem). Moreover, people take issue with "Masonic" sources (but where else one is going to find copious amounts of reliable information I have no idea). Now, there are plenty of areas where material by the group is acceptable to explain the official positions of the group, but is there a citable policy on that, and again, if we have no other sources, how do we solve the problem? MSJapan ( talk) 23:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I must say I am rather disappointed in the decision to un-ban a convicted (in the sense of being proven) socker, who created many socks to make a point about his non-complience with Wikipedia rules and regulations, and would rather engage in edit warring rather than conflict resolution. I wish the ruling can be reversed, but that won't be fair to anyone, and sets a bad precedent as well.
Is there anything we need to do, or we need to be aware of? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 06:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia due to his consistent defamatory accusations about fellow Wikipedians -- calling editors pedophiles and pedo-pushers, all because he does not grasp the difference between it and ephebophilia (for whatever mind-boggling reason). He additionally has a specific "hate on" for me, as though I am some pedophile, despite my contributions to the Pedophilia article and comments on its talk page clearly showing that I am in no way a pedophile and am very much against pedophiles. My edits to that article and talk page show that I have consistently combated actual pedophile-pushers, and yet Raven in Orbit treats me as a pedophile villain.
Though Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia, he has come back to harass me twice now. Once seen in this link, which was reverted by editor Legitimus (also seen in that link), and now more recently in a discussion on my talk page you happened to be involved in. I see that he has even edited his user page to state defamatory remarks about why he left Wikipedia.
What should I do about this person in regards to Wikipedia? Luckily, I have not experienced any email harassment from him. If I have, I missed it. But I could stop the email harassment if that was going on. There does not seem to be anything that I can do to stop this harassment regarding Wikipedia. But as I stated to Legitimus, " I am beyond tired of this troll, even though I have not heard from him in months. I do not take well whatsoever to being called a pedophile or a pedophile-pusher."
Any help you can offer on this matter would be much appreciated by me. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking this user. The user's editings to WMAZ-TV will need to be admin reverted. An anon tried to revert and only got the last edit, there are several edits that are vandalism and I can't revert them. If you could, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Holidays to you and yours...-- Buster7 ( talk) 11:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
...you spare me the "helpful" advice and buy yourself a good Penguin dictionary. DocKino ( talk) 00:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I see you have blocked User_talk:84.236.3.2, and if I'm not mistaken, I think you blocked him/her for removing content from their own talk page. If that is the reason, I think you should read WP:REMOVE, which states that removing content from their user page is taken as evidence that it has been read. The only thing users may not remove from their talk page is block/declined unblock templates while they are blocked, and this IP hasn't been doing that, so if I am correct on the reason you blocked him/her, I think he/she should be unblocked. Thank you. -- Ha dg er 19:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Would it be appropriate to block this new editor:- MarkSykesPhotography? All his edits are links to his own photography website, hosted on zenfolio.com, one of which was a reversion of the removal of his first link to the website. Richard Harvey ( talk) 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Less, sorry to break the perma ban I had to request myself in order to be left in peace by certain persons and bother you again, but some poor soul has been wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of me, by a couple of "the usual suspects". This is not fair, it's just a slur on the user concerned, and on myself, there wasn't even a proper sock check run...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph/Archive
User:Alamanth had nothing, whatsoever to do with me, and this is the first I have heard of him/her, today, check the actual pathways and I feel sure you will find that out. I have no sockpuppets. I also REALLY think it is time someone put a stop to User:Penbat's more abstract capacity for equal misinformation, he is filling up psyhology articles with left of field nonsense, most of which is, at best, a considerable distortion of any source he cites, and, at worse simply made up off the top of his head.
This is horrible stuff, targetting a totally innocent stranger just because they challenged him signed - The REAL Zeraeph -- 109.79.193.159 ( talk) 10:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
PS Merry Christmas
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 21:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
May this season bring you joy and cheer Mark! Even if that picture on your userpage scares the shit out of me
... I hope you enjoy this season! --
Coffee //
have a cup //
ark //
02:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
He just added some sock puppet looking thing onto my talk page. Can you please tell me what a sock puppet is?( MDesjardinss ( talk) 19:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC))
Oh ok, I gotcha there. I have been for 4 or 5 years been anonymous, but I moved about 5 or 6 months ago, so my IP changed, but thanks for the advice and I wish you a Merry Christmas, seeing it is Christmas already where you are.( MDesjardinss ( talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 23:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know it was Internet-speak. Definitely not my day! MajorStovall ( talk) 18:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right on all counts. Thanks. -- MajorStovall ( talk) 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
A gerund too! Will wonders never cease. BTW, on another subject, in the discussion above on my page, we discuss a Pakistani politician whose page was vandalized. It appeared to be an attack page, so I marked for speedy deletion. That was an error, because it was originally a conventional biography, but it was turned into an attack page six days ago and nobody noticed! Amazing, isn't it? He's a tribal leader in Pakistan. It could have set off WWIII, I kid you not. MajorStovall ( talk) 20:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
As one of the guys around here who I respect the most, could I ask you to post User:Hiberniantears/AdministratorCommunityFeedback over at Wikipedia Review? I rip the site quite a bit, but I realize there are still a good number of very solid editors who post there who's insight I would appreciate greatly. No worries if you decline, but I'd appreciate the wider feedback and I don't have an account over there (I just tried to register to post this myself, but I don't meet the email requirements). Hiberniantears ( talk) 00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. What a poor introduction~! I apologize, I've been trying to catch up on uploading photos since the Christmas break.. mea culpa regarding the photo. Glad you caught it, and thank you for behaving with such courtesy. -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 20:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you blocked that anon Special:Contributions/69.159.197.246. However, can you please extend the block period? The anon is a sockpupper of User:InkHeart (a user banned for abusing multiple accounts), and even admits to it here. For the past few months, InkHeart has been avoiding blocks to make unconstructive and vandal edits to numerous articles, and other sockpuppets of hers were blocked yesterday. Thanks. Ω pho is 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Here you go, as promised. I'll take the one on the left. MastCell Talk 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In relation to your full protection of Abdurrahman Wahid, don't you think that perhaps semi-protection is more appropriate, when it is obvious that it is IP editors who are doing the vandalism, e.g. [17]. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to semi-protect the article, so that established editors can continue to edit the article. It does seem a tad unusual that an article relating to a current death is fully protected, when we know that WP is used as a source for info, and there are editors who wish to add this info to the article. Can you please review. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Consensus -- the way things are done and have always been done on Wikipedia, period/full-stop -- and common sense are that indefinitely blocked users who are, you know, actually blocked permanently get the {{ indef}} tag only, and that indefinitely blocked users who are actually blocked permanently don't get memorial pages or their wishes for self-advertising/spam granted. Would care to point to some policy, guideline, or finalized discussion that indicates otherwise? Or shall I have to dig up the policies, guidelines, and/or finalized discussions that restate the obvious? -- Calton | Talk 14:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Calton please be civil. 67.232.52.146 ( talk) 16:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
... for your swift action concerning JoeDG and his creator. Cheers & Happy 2010! - DVdm ( talk) 19:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You just have to imagine me being drunk shouting that in your face. (Note, I'm not drunk) but I wanted to send you a happy new years video which is coincidently my the song from which I got my username.! Happy Wishes to you in 2010.[ [18]] Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 00:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that the IP was somewhat uncivil, many of the AfDs linked were indeed speedy/snow keeps. JBsupreme is involved in an ongoing ArbCom case because of similar issues— not on music but on software AfDs. Please advise the IP to submit any evidence to the ongoing ArbCom case, either to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence or by email if he doesn't want to register an account. Strangely nobody mentioned this on WP:AN. Pcap ping 06:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I should receive an award for attacking that horrible "coldplay" rock group, whose popularity must be based upon hooking up with McDonalds or Holiday Inn, because that seems to be how music groups get attention in the USA, if they go to bed with some big corporation.
That other editor had the nerve to revoke my edits of a Russian female musician even though he admits limited musical knowledge. Somebody needs to remove the tags from that listing and leave it alone. It would make me very mad to see that listing removed, as some have threatened, that would be the ultimate sin. I mean, this whole notability issue is just senseless. "coldplay" is notable for selling records, not quality, and somehow Wikipedia needs to pay more attention to quality, less attention to whether or not a rock musician sells a lot of t-shirts at a Wal-mart in Iowa lol Hell, if Wikipedia lists an artist who only sold one CD, and that CD is high quality, something far superior to "coldplay," then I say, list the musician who sold one CD, and erase "coldplay."
You seem like you might "get it," you seem like somebody who might have some common sense, although your photo sure is strange.
MostFamousPeopleUSA ( talk) 10:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for coming back and reconsidering my block. I know you didn't have to so I do appreciate it. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not agree with you blocking me and not blocking others - neither did I agree with you getting upset about me removing the IP identifier on my talk page, and I certainly didn't agree with you removing my right to edit my own talk page (neither did the admin who gave me that right back) - more details are on my talk page, I would appreciate it if you went there and explained a few things.
thanks 119.173.81.176 ( talk) 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.209.186.241 You blocked him for three months warning him it'd be longer if he did this again, which of course, he now has.
Previously he used various IP addresses, and is doing it once again, word for word, same exact information re-added in two articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.233.6.101 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Age_of_Empires_II:_The_Age_of_Kings&action=history
He used two other IP address to do minor work on it, including the 76.209.186.241 address you previously blocked and warned, which had put the bulk of the information there before. [19]
67.233.6.101 76.209.186.241 125.60.241.96 Dream Focus 06:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering why you didn't inform
User:Cs32en that he was blocked? Or why not fulling protect the page, or block
User:UrukHaiLoR for edit warring as well?
Grsz
11
19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
For your good work.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Elmer Ellsworth has twice added Latin vulgarity to the Spanish Inquisition article, which I have undone. I tried to report it at the "Report Vandals Here" window but I probably messed it up. Since you seemed to handle the previous timed request, I thought I'd ask if I did it right. I'm terrible with tools!-- Buster7 ( talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.........-- Buster7 ( talk) 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against UrukHaiLoR ( talk · contribs). This account very likely is a sockpuppet of Top Gun ( talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely for "lying about sources, in addition to a whole host of other sins". Cs32en 02:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that you do not with to comment on my recent block.
You were wrong in preventing me from editing my own talk page (another admin gave me back that right
You were wrong to complain about me removing the IP identifier (I had already brought this up on ANI and had been told I could remove it)
You were wrong to block me and not block any of the other IP editors or registered editors for edit warring.
I thought that once you realised your mistakes, you might try to explain your actions, or apologise to me - even when I have been blocked in the past, the blocking admin has been polite enough to explain the block and answer any questions that I had, you just remove any method that I had to communicate with you and force me to email other admins - when you removed my talk page editing ability due to your own mistake.
I deserve an explanation and I am looking forward to your response. 119.173.81.176 ( talk) 05:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone unilaterally renamed the record company EMI to EMI Group Ltd. Of course, the company has been known for decades as EMI and is the best known EMI as there is an EMI disambig page. Can you check this out and revert the renaming if necessary? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not tooe sure if this is not allowed but one of the articles I authored is undergoing AFD. Sister Vincenza. I have outlined why she passes single event notability. Right now we seem to be split between merge and keep. Can you weigh in one way or the other? Also on a side note..[ [23]]. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You banned Das Ansehnlisch ( talk · contribs) the other day. He is now evading the ban by editing under the 216.100.93.130 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is typical behavior on his part. Can you ban the IP? Also, would you add a notice to his regular account page about his block/ban evading so future admins will know about it if/when he is ever considered for reinstatement? Thanks a million. — John Cardinal ( talk) 19:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't really know each other, so I hope you don't mind me bothering you! I was hoping someone could provide a little clarity for me, because I'm second-guessing myself. I placed speedy tags on the pages ABC on TV and The Living Model EP, because as far as I understand, they're eligible under CSD A9. I was just kinda wondering if you, almost definitely having a better understanding of deletion policy than me, could maybe help me stop worrying about getting yelled at for doing it wrong. :x Audiosmurf ♪/ ♫ 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Last February, you semi-protected this article indefinitely, as it was coming under a great deal of attention from anon IPs making unconstructive edits. This was mainly due to the fact that the website in question had recently closed, and the anons were competing with each other to add their preferred 'successor sites'. However, in the year since then, it has received little attention from vandals, and the issue seems to have died down. I believe that protection should be used as sparingly as possible, and removed when it's no longer necessary; and it looks to me like that might be the case on this page. I ask that you unprotect this article, at least for a trial period; if the high level of vandalism returns, it can always be protected again. Thanks in advance. Robofish ( talk) 22:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard vanU,
Another problem has emerged at Camp Chapman attack. On the face of it, it appears to be a content dispute. Phiont ( talk · contribs) does not want that the Afghan security director at the base is counted as killed in the attack, while I think that he should be counted as killed in the attack. (According to reliable sources, he was injured by the blast, an an American shot him dead as he thought the security director would be part of the plot. So the security director would not have been killed if the attack would not have taken place, so he was killed in the attack, as a result of friendly fire.)
In this edit summary, Phiont writes "Cs32en, please stop listing the base security director among the attacker's victims. He was not killed by the bomber." The Phiont account was created on Feb. 4, 2009, made five edits from Feb. 4, 2009, to March 3, 2009, one edit yesterday, and one today. The edits display a somewhat greater knowledge of Wikipedia than what one would expect from a really new user. Also, the fact that the account was dormant for about one year looks suspicious. However, there may be too few edits for a successful SPI. I have started a section for discussion at the article's talk page, but I wouldn't be surprised if the discussion does not lead to a consensus.
Do you have an advice on how I should proceed, both at the talk page and with regard to the account Phiont ( talk · contribs)?
Regards. Cs32en 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to seek your guidance in a dispute that I have been engaged in with User:Cs32en. [Disclaimer: I am new to the Wikipedia dispute resolution process]. I am asking for your guidance as you have been involved in adjudicating prior issues with User:Cs32en and thought that I'd seek the advice of someone familiar with the dispute resolution process prior to writing up a soporific bill of particulars.
My perception is that, in discussion with User:Cs32en ,I was the subject of an attempt at war of attrition, with a view toward making me go away, rather than an honest attempt at analyzing this issue(s) in dispute and the applicable Wikipedia policies. Where a person less stubborn and bloody minded than myself might have thrown their hands up in disgust, and gone off to find a better source of entertainment than Wikipedia editing, I elected to persist. It is my perception that User:Cs32en, not acting in good faith, simply wasted my time.
My goal is that such sanctions, as are necessary, be applied to User:Cs32en so that others will not have their, potentially productive, time wasted nor driven away in disgust from participation in Wikipedia. How should I proceed? Need I write-up the soporific bill of particulars? Deicas ( talk) 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
Verify credibility}}
template from a reference to a YouTube video in the article
9/11 Truth movement (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views).
Arthur Rubin (
talk ·
contribs) has
restored the template, and Deicas has
removed it again. I have then
restored the template, and Deicas has
removed the template again (some back and forth in between). I have discontinued the dispute, and Deicas got what he wanted, as the template is now removed from the article. Deicas should realize that he has removed the template against the position taken by two other editors, and that sanctions on his account would be appropriate. I have also indicated to Deicas that I do not intend to continue to discuss the issue with him. As the issue is currently settled, with the content preferred by Deicas prevailing, I do not feel under an obligation to do so. I also find it strange that Deicas does not mention the substance of the issue in his posting.
Cs32en
22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mark. Would it be possible block this obvious vandalism only account? See: Picklecloud. Richard Harvey ( talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Since I trust your judgement, although I know you don't take much part in image deletion discussions, could you take a look at this and tell me whether you think I'm out of order. Sorry if this screws your weekend, but I do despair at those who will not look beyond the surface. Cheers, and belated Happy New Year; I have to go back to hospital for more X-rays next week and am still on antibiotics and painkillers, but manage to be here in the absence of anything better. Regards. Rodhull andemu 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
There is so much puffery, that is the problem, and he is not a philosopher, not in any sense. This has been the problem throughout, that there is no realistic appraisal of him, no secondary sources who discuss him, and this despite all his efforts. If he really were notable, and given how keen he is to have a WP article, he'd have been able to arrange proper coverage for himself in a reliable source by now. But he hasn't, and that signals against notability, in my view.
I'm really not that keen in getting further involved, because the whole thing is so unseemly. The one issue I do care about is that he not be described as a philosopher or placed in that category, because that really would be quite false. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If someone was writing a Wikipedia Western (musical) ... and there was a character vaguely similar to LessHeard vanU ... what might be an archetypal musical theme song for said character (and preferred hat color, etc:) Proofreader77 ( interact) 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
As a currently editing, fair-minded and uninvolved administrator, could I ask you to pay some attention to the ongoing edit warring, brawling and mutual accusations here? I think administrator action is long overdue. Multiple parties are overstepping the bounds of civil discussion and editing. -- TS 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Do you agree? I just want the thoughts of the blocking admin before anything is acutally done. Thanks-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
GoRight ( talk · contribs) has requested that your attention be brought to this section, as they are currently blocked.
On an unrelated note, thank you very much for stepping in at the climate change probation. Having too few admins patrolling the area runs a high risk of losing touch with the norms of the community in general. I hope to see you around again; same goes for your talkpage watchers - an uninvolved opinion - admin or not - can be invaluable in cutting to the heart of a dispute or finding novel compromises. - 2/0 ( cont.) 08:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The "pasty of good humour" | |
For obvious reasons pablo hablo. 12:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
IP 86.14.32.100 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently voted in a straw poll at Talk:The Beatles, voting the same as a previous vote by TheStig118 ( talk · contribs), the only votes (so far) in favor of the proposal in question. As it turns out, TheStig118 had previously replaced an autosigned signature with his own on a previous edit by 86.14.32.100. This strongly suggests that 86.14.32.100 is a sock of TheStig118, and the poll vote by 86.14.32.100 was a deliberate attempt by TheStig118 to influence the outcome of a poll via a sock and thus distort consensus.
Can you look into this and impose a block on TheStig118 if you find that the evidence indicates that 86.14.32.100 is a sock puppet of TheStig118? Thanks. — John Cardinal ( talk) 14:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the point of your remark. The reason for my username was that I received an email from someone I know who said they looking for 'an editor with a background in philosophy'. So the username was a sort of joke. Hope that explains things. Editor with a background in philosophy ( talk) 18:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline, have posted it on the blocked editor's talk page. DuncanHill ( talk) 21:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You said Now, I have only been reviewing the edits since the above ip started complaining of the removal of their comments but I think that all parties including the ip have exceeded the 1RR restriction for content that is not vandalism. I'm not sure which 1RR restriction you're referring to - can you clarify this, please? William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It would appear that I am not alone in my belief [24] William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I would, however, be happy to support GW and t:GW being on 1RR restriction, though. Indeed I'd be happy for the Cl Ch probabtion as a whole being extended to 1RR William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
On a practical matter, the global warming talk page has been cluttered with off-topic nonsense, personal attacks, and discussion of the topic rather than improvements to make to the article for some time now. Your ruling leaves the clutterers feeling bold and I expect things will get worse before they get better.
In view of that, I would welcome your thoughts on how we are going to get talk:global warming back to containing only or mostly civil discussions on how to improve the article. -- TS 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit pissed about your blocks (already mentioned above), especially the one of Kenosis. Kenosis has been with us for 4 years, has over 20000 edits, many in contentious areas like gun control and intelligent design, without coming into any serious conflict with Wikipedia policy. Now you block him while under a misapprehension about 1RR and while ignoring the (cumbersome, I know) process laid out in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, which, among other things, states that Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. While I'm not a process wonk, I think you overreacted here. I would suggest that you retract this block (and possibly the McSly block, albeit he does not seem to mind to much), or at least ask for review at WP:ANI. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
As stephan says, your blundering here has not been at all helpful: [25] is part of the consequences. I think you should back off from all enforecement of these sanctions: you are clearly to busy to actually read the rules and find out what the sanctions actually are. We really don't need behaviour like this William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kenosis_and_LHVU William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
(undent) It appears that these block were not used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, but to punish users. We worry it seems about biting the newcomer but what about the long time contributor? Warning definitely should have been given first. Even vandals get warning and one often sees pages full of them with no blocks given. In an effort to not loss editors willing to contribute and add scientific balance to controversy article it might be a good idea to send an apology to all involved. Cheers from an uninvolved scientific mind. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
There's an article on Brandon Saller, the drummer for Atreyu. None of the other members have articles, or if they did, they have been redirected. Saller's article is sourced to only one source that doesn't meet RS (MySpace), so I redirected it, stating "Article has no RS, and no substantial edits since recreation. Redirecting back to Atreyu band article". That redirect was undone, with the statement that "article looks fine, and that's not a reason to redirect it".
I have no idea what the rationale is here, because I see a case of an unsourced article on an individual where the article's existence assumes inherited notability. The former precludes an article, and the latter violates policy. In any event, could you look this over as a third party in case I can't resolve this with the editor myself? MSJapan ( talk) 23:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard vanU! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
847 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 09:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just seen the most bizarre request at User talk:7107delicious. He says he has emailed you, but from the top of your talk page, I see that he might possibly be sending it to your old email address. So I thought I would draw your attention to it. If you do get the request, and it is a valid reason, could you let me know what it is please(if it isn't private)? I'm baffled as to what reason there is for renaming the acount and then blocking the new one! Stephen! Coming... 13:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Would you take a look here. I have a person that is trolling my page. [ [26]]. To my knowledge I do not know this person but they saw fit to come and make changes to my talkpage. I have asked them to refrain, just need a extra set of eyes to play referee. Hell In A Bucket ( talk)
[27] cuts to the heart of the issue. - 2/0 ( cont.) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I requested full protection for this article today and it appears to have been semi d by missie, would you could you please fully protect it for me? Off2riorob ( talk) 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, its this Susan Roesgen its been a constant tiresome pointy word revert for a few days. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Any chance that we could talk directly before I lift the block? You can find my contact information on my user page here. Thanks! Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)