Very nice recording for the Dinosaur article. You obviously spent a lot of time and work on it. Is there a reason why you deviate from the source text though? Several dinosaur articles need to be recorded and hearing your thoughts would be a plus. Thanks. Genjix ( talk) 19:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork * YES! 10:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dominic. Sorry to bother you but I just wanted to clarify if the accounts listed at the case are socks of each other or not. Some users found your comment a bit ambiguous. Thanks for looking into it-- Cailil talk 16:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
My daughter's user page was oversighted because it contained too much personal information by a minor. She is User:Tatiana kitty. She wishes to put up another user page. What is she permitted to place on her user page so she doesn't run the risk of having her account blocked? Thank you, Dominic. She is very upset by what happened and I told her I'd find out more info.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 19:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jstanierm is it possible to block the IP for User:Brucejenner so they stop making user names and disrupting Wikipedia? I'm not sure how this stuff works. CTJF83 GoUSA 21:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
...the individual in question has been doing his damage for years and years on end. If I'm worked up, it's for a darn good reason. I'll refrain from the extra comments from this point, but I stand by my assertion that this person is beyond the point of politeness. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you please review the unblock request on this page? The user appears to have been caught in a rangeblock, but I don't know if we should give them an IPexempt flag. Thanks! TN X Man 16:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dominic, do you mind if I write in Spanish..? Pusiste hace mucho tiempo (tres anos!) este link "www.cais-soas.com" en black list: aqui y yo quisiera poner "www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/April2006/25-04-three.htm" en it:Bastak. Quizas te acuerdas el porque..? quizas ya no hay razones para eso.. Me parece che al sitio esta bien y no tienes problemas.. que opinas? puedes quitarlo de blacklist? Gracias por tu ayuda, -- Betta27 ( talk) 07:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. – xeno talk 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This user requested a review of your rangeblock. Could you take a look and let me know if there is any action to take? Thanks! TN X Man 15:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dominic, per your earlier blocking of the above-mentioned IP editor → 218.186.8.233 ( talk · contribs) ←, how long did you block him for? Could I suggest a longer block for him (plus disabling of editing own talk page) because of his disruptive behaviour by posting a malicious attack/harassment of a another person twice. Cheers and regards. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you still drink soda? Apl2007 ( talk) 05:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). – xeno talk 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
How many days do you block someone-- Miwoki ( talk) 19:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Miwoki
I have nominated List of popes (graphical) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Courcelles ( talk) 04:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please comment on User_talk:Chudasama#Progress_with_user. Four years ago you blocked the user indef and protected his page. There was also an allegation of sockpuppetry. A year ago, I unprotected the page and adjusted the block to prevent editing own talk page for project-wide reasons unrelated to the specific account. I am not convinced that this user was a real sockpuppet or associated with the alleged accounts in any way. The user has recently committed technical sockpuppetry to evade a block but to some extent he was in a catch 22 and didn't understand how to get out. That activity is unrelated to your block. When another admin decided that he'd posted enough {{ unblock}}'s on his page, he semi-protected the page again, but I've had conversations with the user through the unblock mailing list and think I can work with this user. I am NOT suggesting a complete removal of the block yet and would take any such proposal to an appropriate forum; I just want to adjust the block to allow me to work with the user on-wiki. Since the block in place at present is still really yours, please comment at the user's talk page or e-mail me if necessary. Thanks. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you've served significantly longer than I have, maybe you would have some good input at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Discussion_-_next_round_of_elections.2Fappointments_to_Audit_Subcommittee. Thanks. MBisanz talk 02:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, long time no see. (so doubt you even remember--we mainly cross paths in discussion pages or image spaces) My fault, not yours. Don't have as much wikitime these last few years.
btw I've been wikimissing most of the last several years, so can you also tell me who I petition for admin privileges so I can look in these deleted files myself. I don't recall the process.
Thanks, // Fra nkB 18:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You were involved in an arbitration a couple years ago. [ [2]] A nearly identical behavior and dispute has arisen. [ [3]] I was wondering if you could pop in there and try to clearly define the scope and purpose of Wikipedia to Kehrli [ [4]] as apparently the outcome of the last dispute and the resulting ban did not make such things clear. To summarize: He/she has chosen a different obscure unit-like scaling procedure and is trying to synthesize a well defined unit based on selective use of a few literature examples in combination with the widely accepted rules of metrology. Very elegant work that might be a good idea, but novel nonetheless, and thus not for Wikipedia. I am not a primary participant in the dispute. He/she has also been going over much of the material that he/she was banned from (for 1 year) and is persisting in the course of action that he/she was banned for now that the ban is expired. I have not been policing these actions and the pages have fallen into subtly novel/POV pages.-- Nick Y. ( talk) 20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Very nice recording for the Dinosaur article. You obviously spent a lot of time and work on it. Is there a reason why you deviate from the source text though? Several dinosaur articles need to be recorded and hearing your thoughts would be a plus. Thanks. Genjix ( talk) 19:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork * YES! 10:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dominic. Sorry to bother you but I just wanted to clarify if the accounts listed at the case are socks of each other or not. Some users found your comment a bit ambiguous. Thanks for looking into it-- Cailil talk 16:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
My daughter's user page was oversighted because it contained too much personal information by a minor. She is User:Tatiana kitty. She wishes to put up another user page. What is she permitted to place on her user page so she doesn't run the risk of having her account blocked? Thank you, Dominic. She is very upset by what happened and I told her I'd find out more info.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 19:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jstanierm is it possible to block the IP for User:Brucejenner so they stop making user names and disrupting Wikipedia? I'm not sure how this stuff works. CTJF83 GoUSA 21:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
...the individual in question has been doing his damage for years and years on end. If I'm worked up, it's for a darn good reason. I'll refrain from the extra comments from this point, but I stand by my assertion that this person is beyond the point of politeness. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you please review the unblock request on this page? The user appears to have been caught in a rangeblock, but I don't know if we should give them an IPexempt flag. Thanks! TN X Man 16:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dominic, do you mind if I write in Spanish..? Pusiste hace mucho tiempo (tres anos!) este link "www.cais-soas.com" en black list: aqui y yo quisiera poner "www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/April2006/25-04-three.htm" en it:Bastak. Quizas te acuerdas el porque..? quizas ya no hay razones para eso.. Me parece che al sitio esta bien y no tienes problemas.. que opinas? puedes quitarlo de blacklist? Gracias por tu ayuda, -- Betta27 ( talk) 07:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. – xeno talk 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This user requested a review of your rangeblock. Could you take a look and let me know if there is any action to take? Thanks! TN X Man 15:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dominic, per your earlier blocking of the above-mentioned IP editor → 218.186.8.233 ( talk · contribs) ←, how long did you block him for? Could I suggest a longer block for him (plus disabling of editing own talk page) because of his disruptive behaviour by posting a malicious attack/harassment of a another person twice. Cheers and regards. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you still drink soda? Apl2007 ( talk) 05:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). – xeno talk 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
How many days do you block someone-- Miwoki ( talk) 19:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Miwoki
I have nominated List of popes (graphical) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Courcelles ( talk) 04:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please comment on User_talk:Chudasama#Progress_with_user. Four years ago you blocked the user indef and protected his page. There was also an allegation of sockpuppetry. A year ago, I unprotected the page and adjusted the block to prevent editing own talk page for project-wide reasons unrelated to the specific account. I am not convinced that this user was a real sockpuppet or associated with the alleged accounts in any way. The user has recently committed technical sockpuppetry to evade a block but to some extent he was in a catch 22 and didn't understand how to get out. That activity is unrelated to your block. When another admin decided that he'd posted enough {{ unblock}}'s on his page, he semi-protected the page again, but I've had conversations with the user through the unblock mailing list and think I can work with this user. I am NOT suggesting a complete removal of the block yet and would take any such proposal to an appropriate forum; I just want to adjust the block to allow me to work with the user on-wiki. Since the block in place at present is still really yours, please comment at the user's talk page or e-mail me if necessary. Thanks. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you've served significantly longer than I have, maybe you would have some good input at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Discussion_-_next_round_of_elections.2Fappointments_to_Audit_Subcommittee. Thanks. MBisanz talk 02:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, long time no see. (so doubt you even remember--we mainly cross paths in discussion pages or image spaces) My fault, not yours. Don't have as much wikitime these last few years.
btw I've been wikimissing most of the last several years, so can you also tell me who I petition for admin privileges so I can look in these deleted files myself. I don't recall the process.
Thanks, // Fra nkB 18:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You were involved in an arbitration a couple years ago. [ [2]] A nearly identical behavior and dispute has arisen. [ [3]] I was wondering if you could pop in there and try to clearly define the scope and purpose of Wikipedia to Kehrli [ [4]] as apparently the outcome of the last dispute and the resulting ban did not make such things clear. To summarize: He/she has chosen a different obscure unit-like scaling procedure and is trying to synthesize a well defined unit based on selective use of a few literature examples in combination with the widely accepted rules of metrology. Very elegant work that might be a good idea, but novel nonetheless, and thus not for Wikipedia. I am not a primary participant in the dispute. He/she has also been going over much of the material that he/she was banned from (for 1 year) and is persisting in the course of action that he/she was banned for now that the ban is expired. I have not been policing these actions and the pages have fallen into subtly novel/POV pages.-- Nick Y. ( talk) 20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)