This 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.

Per the discussion at User talk:88.91.14.52, I've agreed to request unblocking for Wiki-11233. As you read the discussion, I think you will understand why I'm a bit hesitant. At the same time, trying to keep the sock drawer nailed shut hasn't been particularly successful, so I'm willing to give this a try. Please don't unblock unless you would be willing to reblock for a violation of the 4 points he agreed to. I'll monitor him: I've got a similar arrangement with Petergriffin9901, and it has worked tolerably well.— Kww( talk) 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can take care of this now that you are back editing. I'm pretty sure it's a young boy we're dealing with here, so patience is probably not his greatest virtue. As far as Xtinadbest goes, she just moved back home after summer vacation (per the last checkuser), so we might stand a chance with IP blocking now.— Kww( talk) 14:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Just thinking about it. I'm very uneasy about unblocking this account, so I'll ponder it for a few days. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I let him know it will be a couple of days. I understand your reluctance, believe me. What's apparent to me is that we are dealing with a severe language barrier combined with fandom here: per this diff, I'm pretty sure he reads our comments, policies and guidelines with a machine translator. That probably accounts for a lot of what seems to be willful incomprehension on his part: if his translation software fails, he gets bewildered.— Kww( talk) 14:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We really should say "yes" or "no" to this guy.— Kww( talk) 22:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, if you're willing to mentor him, I'll give it a chance. I don't usually unblock people with a history of abuse such as this, but he seems to promise not to repeat his past actions, and you're obviously trusted enough to offer a helping hand. I'll unblock him now, but please join me in keeping a close eye on his behaviour. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock performed on main account, as per accepted practice. One of the strongest conditions of the unblock is that he stick to this account only, and must not make any deliberately logged-out edits, or any other account. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think of any of them as stronger than another: he agreed to four points:

1. No alternate accounts, and no anonymous editing: you will edit as Wiki-11233, and no-one else.
2. No reverts: you aren't allowed to revert any edits by any editors.
3. No unsourced charts. Any chart you add to any article has to have an explicit source.
4. No use of YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, or MySpace as sources.

His range of IPs is limited so I can monitor anonymous edits pretty easily. If I suspect named socking, I'll have to rely on your powers of persuasion to get a checkuser run. The rest is the real problems that got him blocked in the first place: if I can cure him of those, life won't be so bad. Some days, I just get tired of Whack-a-Mole, and like to try a different approach. If he screws up again, at least we know it was hopeless.— Kww( talk) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, good luck. :) Let me know if you need assistance, and thanks for taking on the task. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That was quick. He was providing fake platinum certifications on his first edit. Please reblock, the key can safely be tossed.— Kww( talk) 19:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done, oh well, ya can't win 'em all. :) Thanks for your efforts. PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming to take it back: he didn't link it properly, but he had a source.— Kww( talk) 19:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Right... :P Done. PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've deemed it hopeless. I've given him multiple chances, and he just can't bring himself to stop reverting. Per User talk:Wiki-11233, please reinstall Wiki-11233's indefinite block.— Kww( talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your details in the list of editors who can provide advice. I hope this is up your street! If you are in the UK you may well have heard of the case.

My query is whether it is appropriate to include a sourced summary of the disagreement between an soccer player’s agent and his professional body (both notable) following his conviction and imprisonment on serious assault charges? The article is Marlon King and the content disagreement is in the second half of [1] and can be summarised by the final para. in this dif [ [2]]. (I agree with the other minor change he made in the preceding para –it wasn’t mine)

King has a lengthy record of criminal activity and was jailed last week for sexual and actual assault. His agent has been widely quoted in national newspaper and broadcast media describing his client’s future employment prospects and has criticised the player’s professional body for failing to offer support. The body concerned (PFA) has refuted this, published on its website and given radio interviews. The PFA has an established record of assisting its members with addiction and other problems.

The opposing view on the talk page can best be summed up as this WP:NOT#NEWS, although it has been described in more pejorative terms.

I cannot find any WP:BLP, notability, privacy, verifiability or other policy reason to exclude this. By the same token, I cannot find any specific guidance that allows it. Any advice please? Leaky Caldron 17:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. WP:NOT#NEWS would be applicable if this development gave undue weight, but I can't personally see that occurring. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter, many thanks. I will reapply the short piece and see what happens! Thanks again. Leaky Caldron 11:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This user got caught in a rangeblock of a serial spammer--any chance this could be fixed. Please comment on his talk page. Blueboy 96 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good evening. I was trying to ask for a rollbacker permission, using this code:

{{subst:rfp|Rrmsjp|I am a rollbacker in the [http://es.wikipedia.org Spanish Wikipedia] (You can verify it [http://es.wikipedia.org/?title=Especial:ListaUsuarios&limit=1&username=Rrmsjp here], and I think I can use this flag here to help English wikipedia too. If there are too many vandalism in the Spanish Wikipedia, I think I can find more here.}} ~~~~

But when I click in the "show preview" button, this appears:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Rrmsjp (Need something?) 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the reason that I write to you directly, due to the fact that you are an administrator. I would like to see if I can have the rollback permission. Regards Rrmsjp ( Need something?) 01:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be due to the links in the template; that text is called "lorem ipsum" and it is supposed to appear when someone doesn't fill in all the fields in the template. But there seems to be a bug somewhere. You're not the first one to have that problem. I would recommend filling out a simpler version of the template, and then you can add the links to the Spanish Wikipedia afterwards. -- Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Due to the fact that you have external links (URLs) in the template, you have to put a "2=" in, for the second parameter, like so:

{{subst:rfp|Rrmsjp|2=I am a rollbacker in the [http://es.wikipedia.org Spanish Wikipedia] (You can verify it [http://es.wikipedia.org/?title=Especial:ListaUsuarios&limit=1&username=Rrmsjp here], and I think I can use this flag here to help English wikipedia too. If there are too many vandalism in the Spanish Wikipedia, I think I can find more here.}} ~~~~

However, I don't think you will be granted rollback right at this time, due to your lack of edits in the article space. You might want to collect more edits and experience before requesting the right. Killiondude ( talk) 01:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Its the special characters that confuse the template code (specifically the '=' in the URL) that result in it requiring named (or numbered) parameters. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I'll try with the code you wrote. Now, talking about experience, it is true, I only have a few contributions here, but with the flag in the Spanish Wikipedia, I know that I have enough experience. The only thing that changes is the language. because the vandalism is almost the same. I will try and if I'm lucky, I hope to help here in the same way that I help in the Spanish Wikipedia. The important thing is the benefit of the project. Best regards Rrmsjp ( Need something?) 02:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, you're notorious!  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fun. :p PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting, I was going to ask someone to do it. I only put it there for a few other editors to read, and they've done that already. I have a backup and I'll put it up on a website offwiki as a lesson for others. ► RATEL ◄ 12:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

		The 2009 WikiCup Participant Award
		This WikiCup Award is presented to PeterSymonds for their participation in the 2009 WikiCup. Your contributions along the way have greatly improved the quality of many articles, pictures, and sounds on the English Wikipedia.

Congratulations! Hope to see you sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, here, if you haven't already! iMatthew  ^talk at 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/12.10.246.4

-- Brangifer ( talk) 07:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly. Already blocked by Killiondude ( talk · contribs). Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and it looked like he spotted this and vandalized our pages! -- Brangifer ( talk) 14:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir i would like you to update the article about Delhi 2010 and put images which are required ~ as you deleted mine (of the baton and mascot) ~ i hope you will do that! Else what's the use!

And for your kind information the Website is for public viewing and I am using these images on wikipedia for educational purposes ~ God! I just don't understand why are you deleting the images ~ please find replcements first then delete them! :(

--Angry Indian-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsh.freewill ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They are copyrighted images; you can't upload them as public domain images when the copyright is owned by somebody else, even for educational purposes. If there are free replacements available, they can be used (by free, I mean images licensed by the copyright holder for free use). Please do not upload these images again. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir Please sight "believable" and valid reasons for deleting the images from the article XIX Commonwealth Games Delhi 2010, or else I would believe that you do not want to show the world India's progress and uniqueness - the baton which is even better than the Beijing Olympics Torch (leave alone commonwealth game) - it is remarkable example to India's advancement in technology, its new found prosperity (the whole baton is plated with gold and the Queen's message engraved on an 18 carat gold leaf, the mascot which shows Indians now think broad - with a mass appealing character - depicting India's National Animal.

Sir I would here also like you to see a link of the III Commonwealth Youth games wherein the picture of the mascot has been used from the Official Website ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jigrr.png) but you didn't bothered to delete it because people around the world will hardly search that on wikipedia.

And here I would like to justify the use of the images their use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because: 1.It illustrates an educational article about the entity that the logo represents. 2.The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic. 3.It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods. 4.The logo is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article was written or authorized by the owner of the logo. 5.It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

And I would also like to point out that it is very unlikely that an official Press Kit will be uploaded any time soon on the website and I assure you that INDIA wants to show its prowess and open eyes of the western people that we are NO MORE A LAND OF SNAKE CHARMERS! In fact today the Economy of the world owes a lot to INDIA and hence Indian Government will never mind the pictures being used for good cause and spreading awareness.

DO NOT ASSUME IT TO BE A HATE MESSAGE but I really feel disgusted!

Hope you will understand after reading my message and allow me to upload the pics again.

And we Indians do not violate rule so I will only upload them back when I get your nod.

Thanks

Regards, Harshavardhana (www.harshvardhan.co.tv) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsh.freewill ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that isn't what you did, is it? You uploaded them as public domain images, which was a false license for these images. PeterSymonds ( talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Janet Allison. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Power.corrupts ( talk) 13:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added an evidence link to the template under the "suspectedsock" option. I want to reserve the "This user is a sockpuppet" template only for the ones that a CheckUser has checked, since those are, technically speaking, the only ones confirmed. A little nitpicky, but eh. — Animum ( talk) 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter,

I took the liberty of reporting that to ANI because I didn't know if you were still around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Suicide_threat_2 Leaky Caldron 22:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note I have added additional findings here, with a comment to SPI clerks. I am quite sure there are additional stale socks around, please check the rather limited contribs for the known socks and work your way through the articles involving art, LA, animals, etc. Incidentally, I have blocked the underlying IP as well. Thanks heaps. Risker ( talk) 06:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've got a few possibilities, but some of them aren't stale. Are all the current socks 100% confirmed and blocked? If so, the behavioural similarities are just coincidence. I'll hold off until I'm back home after dinner and give the list a proper review. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I blocked it; a checkuser confirmed it later. Also found User:AnimalGuardian. No obvious stale accounts in the histories, but I'm still looking. PeterSymonds ( talk) 21:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there.

I've recently posted on WP:HERTS and User:Simply South's talk page about the possibility of bringing the project back to life, and if so how we would go about this and what we would do. I was wondering if you would be interested in getting involved? I think we have a small but dedicated and diverse group of editors, including editors with interests in geography, sports, transport, mills, politics, music and history. If we could bring these talents together I reckon we could produce some fantastic work on some of the project's key areas, for instance (but not limited to) Hertfordshire, History of Hertfordshire (which is already a good article), and the county's larger settlements.

Personally I believe the key to successfully bringing together the efforts of editors with interest in anything remotely Herts related will be to maintain at least a semi-active talk page at WT:HERTS. Feel free to give any thoughts or suggestions there, or even to ask if you want a quick pair of eyes on something. Regards, WFCforLife ( talk) 21:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Socks everywhere…

I noticed that over at User talk:63.139.66.1, you wrote that that IP was

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Rr456". The reason given for Rr456's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Sockpuppet of LouisBrownstone".

I think that should instead have been

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Rr456". The reason given for Rr456's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Sockpuppet of Knyphausen56".

which would make it match what's over at User:Rr456.

Thanks, Dori ❦ ( Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, fixed. Thanks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 21:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to implement a feature in two templates that have been protected by User:Dragons flight, who's on a wiki-holiday: see Template_talk:Str_index and Template_talk:Str_sub. These templates end up using {{ FormattingError}} in some cases, which puts the page in Category:Pages_with_incorrect_formatting_templates_use. It is common and not incorrect for example pages to show these errors, so FormattingError has an argument called "nocategory" that can be set to "true" to prevent categorization, while retaining the error message. There are a number of pages that are currently in this category that should not be, for this reason. I've made all edits that I could to fix this, but I need to access these two templates as well. Can you un-protect them for me so I can do this?     — SkyLined ( talk) 08:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Let me know when you're done, and thanks! PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just found out I need access to Template:Str_index/logic as well. I'm hoping I can get this fixed within a day and will let you know when it's done. Thank!     — SkyLined ( talk) 21:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Done and thanks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

All is fixed, thank you!!     — SkyLined ( talk) 22:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have another request: Template:Val/delimitnum needs a null edit (see Template_talk:Val/delimitnum). Could you do that for me, or consider removing the protection?     — SkyLined ( talk) 22:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you; the same goes for Template:Val/delimitnum/real 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reduced both to semi, and restored the protection on the other three. Thanks for your work! PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The list keeps getting bigger and bigger:

• • Template:Val/delimitnum/fraction

• • Template:Val/delimitnum/logic

I've looked at the source and hope that I have found all the templates involved now :S.     — SkyLined ( talk) 08:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All done! I have one other request: I've been modifying some of the documentation for sub-templates of {{ val}}. I'd like to make {{ Val/delimitnum/firstgroup}} similar to {{ Val/delimitnum}}. Could you unprotect that for me (or even copy+paste the <noinclude> part of the later to the first? Thanks for everything!!!     — SkyLined ( talk) 16:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Done again. :) PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Same here :D     — SkyLined ( talk) 00:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks much. Are there any templates you want reprotected? I don't particularly mind either way. PeterSymonds ( talk) 08:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally would like to see them semi-protected because it makes editing easy. A lot of this is still under development and bug fixes/new features are added every few months. There has not been any vandalism on them afaik, so I hope they're at low risk. I suggest we keep them semi-protected until we see attacks or until they're stable enough to not have any edits for months.     — SkyLined ( talk) 11:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:15, 16 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) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How can 7 1/2 hours be "stale"?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.194.226.158

Brangifer ( talk) 15:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There's little point in blocking now, if he stopped editing seven and a half hours ago. Stale merely means that the account it isn't worth blocking at the moment. If the IP doesn't edit the article again, the short block won't make much of a difference anyway. But if s/he does return, feel free to notify me or WP:AIV (the latter is better and likely faster). Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I just saw your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Picheriko/Archive. Forgive me for being a bit slow; what exactly do you mean by "not sure what we can do here"? I thought the process existed to warn, ban, or block people who abuse the system, or place them on some kind of watch. At the very least I thought this would be marked down in the accounts' records so that admins investigating any further infractions would know at a glance. Is there a statue of limitations? If so, what is it?

Thanks for any insight you can share. - moritheil ^Talk 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It means that, from a sockpuppetry point of view, there is no conclusive way to prove abuse occurred. The first account is stale from a checkuser perspective, and it was never blocked, so there's no apparent block evasion. It wouldn't be fair to mark these accounts as the same when 1) there's no proof these are the same person, and 2) the first account is so old to make it worthwhile. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So, how can it be proved? Don't get me wrong; I'm not pursuing this if you're telling me it can't be pursued. It's just that my entire concept of the Sockpuppet Investigations section was that it was the go-to source for proofs. What is it that keeps you from proving puppetry in this case? Can't you just check the list of all IPs that he logged in from and see if any match? Or is that not how it's done? - moritheil ^Talk 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem. Unfortunately when checkuser evidence goes stale, and the user hasn't been checked before, there will be no way to technically prove a relationship between X and Y. So it falls to behavioural evidence, things like edit summary stylings; grammar and syntax usage; odd "quirks" in behaviour that indicate a connection; or suspected block evasion/double voting. This is by no means technical or conclusive proof; it's about judgement, and it often differs on a case-by-case basis. In this case, there was no behavioural evidence that conclusively matched the suspected sockmaster. Furthermore, there was no evidence of motive; the suspected sockmaster was never blocked, and as far as I can see, neither account attempted to falsify consensus at community discussion. There were too many differences to conclusively say either way, and on top of this, it is unclear whether WP:SOCK was actually violated. Sockpuppet investigations, whether by checkuser or behavioural analysis (or both), is sometimes not 100% conclusive, and in the cases where there are too many differences to conclude one way or the other, we often close the case as unactionable. Hope that helps. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was tempted earlier but decided to give him more rope. We shall see what Xerxes49 ( talk · contribs) does who may be the same editor. Dougweller ( talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No probs. PeterSymonds ( talk) 08:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted Louis Morneau last year, could you please mail me a copy? TIA, Paradoctor ( talk) 14:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

hi there,

Why did you delete my talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.182.242 ( talk) 00:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism. Please do not restore the page again, or you will be blocked from editing. Thanks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 02:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Regarding [3] and others, you write: "new users are not getting the required standard of help available". I'm just wondering, and maybe I'm just missing something here, but how did you come to this conclusion? Is this just from your own observations of the channel or was there a discussion somewhere where consensus was established that the standard of help is just not high enough? I'm left wondering if maybe it was the result of User:Chzz leaving after that disastrous RfA.. he was a great helper there.. -- œ ^™ 11:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Partly. I'm obviously not going to single out individual people, but I've had several complaints, both from new users and admins, about the help that's offered and received. The issue was also visibility. The link was only added because Chzz was dedicated enough to see to multiple requests at any one time. When he left, not many people were willing to do that. This was based on my own observance, and several others who offer regular help in the channel. However, I reverted my edit after noting the on-wiki consensus to add it. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I work for a company called Vringo. A little over a year ago, before I joined the company, some overzealous members of our PR agency created (and then, on multiple occasions, re-created) an entry laden with promotional language ( Vringo, which resulted in multiple G11 deletions, followed by an A7 deletion and ultimately, creation protection.

I recently received a few comments from new Vringo user who pointed out that we don't have a page, which is why I'd like to reopen the discussion. (And I fully understand that it's not for me or anyone in my company to create an entry, even if it's unlocked.)

To answer previous editors' concerns, I promise that no one from the company -- or from an affiliated agency -- will create, edit or litter the page with promotional language. Also, in terms of Vringo's significance, we've been recognized by media sources ranging from BusinessWeek to Reuters to CNET for our contributions to the mobile content industry.

Thanks for your time! -- Joshshabtai ( talk) 20:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Woops! Unfortunately, all I saw was that the editor had signed the article -- that was the reason for my reversion. It was careless of me not to have noticed the rest. That said, the claim to have reported the offending IP to "local police for further prosecution" (for the crime of "liable," no less) has more than a faint whiff of the ludicrous about it. -- Rrburke^{( talk)} 21:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't touch my talk page anymore. Whatever agenda you have, please take it to the appropriate forum where we can discuss it there. -- Firefly322 ( talk) 23:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable, and if you violate BLP so flagrantly again, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. PeterSymonds ( talk) 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a courtesy note to notify you that I've modified your block of Firefly322 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to indefinite per a previous discussion on ANI. I suspect you were not aware of the discussion and assume you are ok with the modification. Cheers. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware, and am absolutely fine with this. Thanks for letting me know. PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Me and HonouraryMix feel that there is more to Mcjakeqcool's collection of sockpuppet accounts than the ones currently listed. ☭ Pickbothmanlol☭ 19:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I believe you did the blocking for this case. You blocked the results that turned up from the checkuser, but forgot to block the actual sock that I reported. Take a look at it if you have a minute. Cheers and thanks, Erzsébet Báthory_{( talk| contr.)} 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, could you detail how you came to the decision that they were a sock, either here or on their talk page? Thanks Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bksimonb pretty much summed it up, but to give further info: Lucyintheskywithdada has a long history of both socking, and the article has a history of suspected meatpuppetry with the sort of edits Lucyinthesky is known to make. Therefore, while I don't think this is a sockpuppet, I do think it is another meatpuppet account of this editor. PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

{{ Talkback}}

First, I would like to thank you for your work helping over at DYK. I saw that you moved Alice (TV miniseries) to Prep 2; however, it did not have a check mark indicating that it has been approved by an editor for any outstanding issues. Was it that you reviewed it prior to promotion? Calmer Waters 18:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked it personally. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 18:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saw that in the watchlist. You obviously are well versed in DYK. We have been hurting for help over the last few days for help. Thank you so much. Kindly Calmer Waters 18:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah, no problem. ;-) PeterSymonds ( talk) 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, PeterSymonds. 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 been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Off2riorob_after_multiple_extensions_of_good_faith. Thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 01:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, PeterSymonds. In October, you deleted a page about Klaatu (podcaster), citing reason A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion. I'd like to petition that this podcaster is worthy of inclusion due to his niche fame within the Linux community. He is a well known podcaster, on five major Linux podcasts, guest hosted on two other shows, he maintains the slackermedia Linux distribution, he has written magazine articles for almost all major Linux magazines, has appeared at three or four major Linux conferences as a guest speaker, hosts the popular unixporn.com website, his blog is syndicated on a few major Linux sites, and generally is an important personality in the Linux entertainment world. To not include him on wikipedia would be to misrepresent the Linux podcasting sphere, I believe. He is more than just an amateur podcaster. He is a modern journalist of technology and free culture, both of which I also believe wikipedia represents and supports.

May I post the article again, perhaps with clarification on why Klaatu is an important figure?

Thanks,

Jim (angryyoungnerd) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryyoungnerd ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Basically notability on Wikipedia is asserted and backed up by reliable sources. As long as Klaatu appears in these reliable sources (for example, reputable websites, magazines, journals; but not user forums, blogs, IRC channels, etc). This is crucial to the article, and determines whether it should be deleted or not. If Klaatu doesn't appear in reliable sources like the ones explained, I'm afraid it won't be possible to create the article. Best regards, PeterSymonds ( talk) 21:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks.

Dog still doesn't have a custom sig, whimper whimper. Dog The Teddy Bear ( talk) 21:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, slipped my mind! I made something up at User:PeterSymonds/Sig. I've not had much experience with HTML stuff, so let me know if it's suitable (images can't be used in signatures, and I couldn't find a paw print that wasn't an image, unfortunately). Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I like it! If you have improvement ideas, post on my talk, Thanks! Dog The Teddy Bear ( talk) 17:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

first use of my new sig. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I used your input and my Rlevse sig and merged them to this: <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC"> — [[User:Dog The Teddy Bear|<b style="color:#956e37;">Dog The Teddy Bear</b>]] • [[User_talk:Dog The Teddy Bear|<span style="color:#956e37;">^{<b>Bully!</b>}</span>]] • </span> When I saved your code it didn't like it, I think the box was the problem but not sure. Any ideas to further improve, pls post on Dog's talk, again, many thanks. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The new one is easier on the eye anyway. ;-) PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:23, 27 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} 06:43, 27 November 2009 (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.