We're getting nailed by 4channers. Please keep an eye on AIV and RFPP, I've been sending stuff to both places. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 12:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there; could I ask you to look at the talkpage of this user, whome you recently blocked? -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
To: User:NawlinWiki, User:Salvio giuliano and User:Kinu
You are all admins. I'd like to point out what you did regarding Ozark outdoors. This was a poorly written article on a possibly notable subject (a medium-sized company that has existed for decades). It was written by User:Ozarkworld, a new editor who had done some research and written original copy on the subject. However, User:Ozarkworld was not aware wiki standards and rules. Here is what you did:
Great work guys. Now rather than us having a new editor User:Ozarkworld has left wikipedia never to come back. Delete and block are not the only things admins are able to do. Sometimes you could try engaging with new editors who do not know the rules.
(PS. Dissent is permitted. Please don't block me) -- Bucephalus ( talk) 17:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
softerblock}}
is as unbitey as humanly possible (it welcomes the user to Wikipedia, explains that the only reason for the block is the username and invites him to create a new account or to appeal the block if he believes that it was imposed in error); many people contact me by email or ask to be unblocked to ask for a rename... In short, I'm really sorry this user took offence at my block, but I don't believe I acted improperly. That said, I firmly believe that criticism, when expressed civilly, is always useful, so do not fear any retaliation from me.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
21:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Hi Salvio. Just a note that the essay Wikipedia:Competence is required says "in general, if WP:COMPETENCE applies to an editor, it is usually not appropriate to tell them so". Possibly we need an advice essay with a less insulting title that could be used as an explanation for editors who get blocked for these reasons, but in the absence of such an advice page, it's best to use that link with care.
(I don't disagree with the block itself, this person seems to be extremely difficult to communicate with, and plenty of people have tried.) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 11:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for helping deal with the backlog at Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. Please note, however, that merely deleting the old versions of the iage doesn't remove it from the category - pleasse also remove the {{ orphaned fair use revisions}} tag from the iage description page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. The issue has been hashed out only three months ago, and I am fairly sure that the present IP is the same person as was previously contesting the point about "most famous" etc. - Sitush ( talk) 16:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the two articles for which protection was requested, I made a new inquiry [1]. in all good faith. I'd like to be shown some guidelines so that I will not keep wasting everyone's time asking for protection. I have been able to protect pages in the past against such edits, and now I am refused each time with the same rejection. I'd be most obliged. Please let me know on my talk page if there is a guideline page or rules you could spell out for me. Thanks. Djathink imacowboy 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
In this case, the disruptive edits were only a few edits, were made by one or two IPs and were concentrated over the last day or so. Such low-level disruption is best handled through block. When there are multiple IPs wreaking havoc or when they are limited in number but the disruption they cause is stretched over a long period of time (or when vandals are hitting a WP:BLP), then protection is warranted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
IP at it again here [7]. Fortunately intercepted and reverted. This was a particularly sneaky edit not noted in my watchlist due to the swiftness of its reversion. Prepared to block IP now? Or not? Djathink imacowboy 23:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake Salvio. I'd thought that the word "gay" was a serious violation of username policy. Thank you for letting me know anyways. Abhijay Talk?/ Deeds 02:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was under the impression that vandalism encompassed 'adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page'. As the content of the article in question was 'is a brown man' or something to that effect, I would think that G3 is as justifiable as A7? Thanks, - blake - 20:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Salvio,
I don't know if you remember but you helped me a few months ago with my page. I tried to transfer it to publish it but people have moved it and I can't find it - please can you help me? Thanks C
Your draft was here, but it was deleted as it appeared to be a copyright violation. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, so I cannot undelete it. I'm really sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, my user talk page has been vandalized for the second time and my guess is that the idiot will start doing so for my drafts as well. See this. As such, i would appreciate it if you would do one of the following:
or;
Thank you. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 12:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to thank you. The article needs some protection and I am glad you assisted so patiently and diligently. That IP is clearly a vandal, in this case due to the IP's behaviour and not due to content of edit. Djathink imacowboy 18:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Salvio, you need to see this edit summary[ [8]]. Djathink imacowboy 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Salvio: 1st, I don't believe I added that last message to you that is clearly unsigned. ("Let's hope you get no more abusive messages from unidentfied IPs. Merry Xmas.") I would never write "Xmas" to anyone. Now....I know this [11] will make you laugh but I am, as I said before, getting nervous about it. You really ought to bring this to ANI. This can turn into serious disruption and I'm sick of seeing this editor switching IPs only to vandalise articles just so the IP can call you names and insult you. Djathink imacowboy 22:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For good humoured, rational editing decisions all the way round. Djathink imacowboy 20:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.
[13]. Arbcom has not accepted the case, and closing a discussion before consensus has been reached does not benefit the project; it acts more like the bell at the end of a boxing round -- rather than having achieved anything positive, the parties just back to their "corners" until we do it all again. The conversation will end when folks run out of things to say. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I posted a link (in a "Statement from Ched" section) to the comment Malleus had regarding the case. I wasn't sure where to put it. Since you're the clerk - thought I'd drop it in your lap. feel free to move or refactor, or whatever should be done with it. Cheers and have a great holiday season. — Ched : ? 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
We're getting nailed by 4channers. Please keep an eye on AIV and RFPP, I've been sending stuff to both places. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 12:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there; could I ask you to look at the talkpage of this user, whome you recently blocked? -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
To: User:NawlinWiki, User:Salvio giuliano and User:Kinu
You are all admins. I'd like to point out what you did regarding Ozark outdoors. This was a poorly written article on a possibly notable subject (a medium-sized company that has existed for decades). It was written by User:Ozarkworld, a new editor who had done some research and written original copy on the subject. However, User:Ozarkworld was not aware wiki standards and rules. Here is what you did:
Great work guys. Now rather than us having a new editor User:Ozarkworld has left wikipedia never to come back. Delete and block are not the only things admins are able to do. Sometimes you could try engaging with new editors who do not know the rules.
(PS. Dissent is permitted. Please don't block me) -- Bucephalus ( talk) 17:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
softerblock}}
is as unbitey as humanly possible (it welcomes the user to Wikipedia, explains that the only reason for the block is the username and invites him to create a new account or to appeal the block if he believes that it was imposed in error); many people contact me by email or ask to be unblocked to ask for a rename... In short, I'm really sorry this user took offence at my block, but I don't believe I acted improperly. That said, I firmly believe that criticism, when expressed civilly, is always useful, so do not fear any retaliation from me.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
21:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Hi Salvio. Just a note that the essay Wikipedia:Competence is required says "in general, if WP:COMPETENCE applies to an editor, it is usually not appropriate to tell them so". Possibly we need an advice essay with a less insulting title that could be used as an explanation for editors who get blocked for these reasons, but in the absence of such an advice page, it's best to use that link with care.
(I don't disagree with the block itself, this person seems to be extremely difficult to communicate with, and plenty of people have tried.) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 11:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for helping deal with the backlog at Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. Please note, however, that merely deleting the old versions of the iage doesn't remove it from the category - pleasse also remove the {{ orphaned fair use revisions}} tag from the iage description page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. The issue has been hashed out only three months ago, and I am fairly sure that the present IP is the same person as was previously contesting the point about "most famous" etc. - Sitush ( talk) 16:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the two articles for which protection was requested, I made a new inquiry [1]. in all good faith. I'd like to be shown some guidelines so that I will not keep wasting everyone's time asking for protection. I have been able to protect pages in the past against such edits, and now I am refused each time with the same rejection. I'd be most obliged. Please let me know on my talk page if there is a guideline page or rules you could spell out for me. Thanks. Djathink imacowboy 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
In this case, the disruptive edits were only a few edits, were made by one or two IPs and were concentrated over the last day or so. Such low-level disruption is best handled through block. When there are multiple IPs wreaking havoc or when they are limited in number but the disruption they cause is stretched over a long period of time (or when vandals are hitting a WP:BLP), then protection is warranted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
IP at it again here [7]. Fortunately intercepted and reverted. This was a particularly sneaky edit not noted in my watchlist due to the swiftness of its reversion. Prepared to block IP now? Or not? Djathink imacowboy 23:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake Salvio. I'd thought that the word "gay" was a serious violation of username policy. Thank you for letting me know anyways. Abhijay Talk?/ Deeds 02:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was under the impression that vandalism encompassed 'adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page'. As the content of the article in question was 'is a brown man' or something to that effect, I would think that G3 is as justifiable as A7? Thanks, - blake - 20:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Salvio,
I don't know if you remember but you helped me a few months ago with my page. I tried to transfer it to publish it but people have moved it and I can't find it - please can you help me? Thanks C
Your draft was here, but it was deleted as it appeared to be a copyright violation. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, so I cannot undelete it. I'm really sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, my user talk page has been vandalized for the second time and my guess is that the idiot will start doing so for my drafts as well. See this. As such, i would appreciate it if you would do one of the following:
or;
Thank you. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 12:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to thank you. The article needs some protection and I am glad you assisted so patiently and diligently. That IP is clearly a vandal, in this case due to the IP's behaviour and not due to content of edit. Djathink imacowboy 18:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Salvio, you need to see this edit summary[ [8]]. Djathink imacowboy 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Salvio: 1st, I don't believe I added that last message to you that is clearly unsigned. ("Let's hope you get no more abusive messages from unidentfied IPs. Merry Xmas.") I would never write "Xmas" to anyone. Now....I know this [11] will make you laugh but I am, as I said before, getting nervous about it. You really ought to bring this to ANI. This can turn into serious disruption and I'm sick of seeing this editor switching IPs only to vandalise articles just so the IP can call you names and insult you. Djathink imacowboy 22:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For good humoured, rational editing decisions all the way round. Djathink imacowboy 20:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.
[13]. Arbcom has not accepted the case, and closing a discussion before consensus has been reached does not benefit the project; it acts more like the bell at the end of a boxing round -- rather than having achieved anything positive, the parties just back to their "corners" until we do it all again. The conversation will end when folks run out of things to say. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I posted a link (in a "Statement from Ched" section) to the comment Malleus had regarding the case. I wasn't sure where to put it. Since you're the clerk - thought I'd drop it in your lap. feel free to move or refactor, or whatever should be done with it. Cheers and have a great holiday season. — Ched : ? 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)