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.

Remember you blocked Shahshah39? He has a sockpuppet Shahshah40. Look at message on my talk page "I have returned".-- Jastcaan ( talk) 10:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this message. Blocked. Thanks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you look into blocking User:69.78.67.175 or protecting same-sex marriage I find this highly suspect. CTJF83 chat 19:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I see you get stuff done! :) CTJF83 chat 19:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not waste the time of other editors with frivolous edits. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted you. Email me for details. PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such religion as "Irish Catholic." If you do this again I will cite you for vandalism. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 11:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

When you deleted File:Birkenhead Park station sign.jpg, File:Birkenhead Park booking office from platform.jpg and File:Belgian Battery Corner CWGC Cemetery 512566076.jpg, did you miss the {{ nocommons}} tags here, here and here? Perhaps you'll want to undelete these files. Thanks. ⇦ REDVERS ⇨ 08:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks like I did. Sorry about that; restored. PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps Redvers wants to upload the original version here File:Birkenhead Park booking office from platform.jpg - I think it is a shame that users of Wikipedia should not be allowed to see the full version. -- MGA73 ( talk) 10:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wordstir is clearly a sock ... but of whom? As a mininum, it does appear that User:Vertebralcompressionfractures has some major COI ... I reviewed and declined CrunchyChewy's unblock request ... thoughts? ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 12:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was my suspicion too; I'm pleased I wasn't completely off-base! I analysed the contributions and assumed that Wordstir is Vertebralcompressionfactors, purely based on which version the former reverted to. I thought all the accounts were behaving pretty suspiciously – I thought a block for 24 hours was sensible while it was being investigated. I might ping a checkuser later to set the record straight. PeterSymonds ( talk) 12:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the IP's does resolve to DFine ... and the very top post on the article talkpage looks like he admits to being part of DFine, and uses "we" ... there are a few usernames that suddenly popup out of nowhere (Anne Hill Communications for one). I keep thinking "something, something, rotten, state of Denmark" ...( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 12:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I poked around more ... indef'd Vertebralcompression ... put new block notice ... unblocked CrunchyChewy as it appears he was validly attempting to reverse what could be called vandalism (falsification of medical data and extreme promotion). Feel free to disagree :-) We'll see if socks emerge ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 12:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that seems sensible. Thanks for handling that. I'll let you know what the checkuser says about the rest when one's around. PeterSymonds ( talk) 13:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Um...The guy's been here for two days. He's also technically a block-evading sock. Half Shadow 20:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

fine turn my request down. i don't mind. it's not my choice. also the only reason i created a new user is because i wanted to be able to make posts on other pages. if you will notice i have not even visited the yccs page because like i said i gave up. i'm sure youve made mistakes too, but i'm not one to judge.I will not argue againts anyones decision i might ask a question but im done fighting, its just pointless.Witeink ρεβῼ Talk/ Stalk 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you block 118.96.56.195 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? The edits that were made on this IP were those of a IP hopping vandal putting misinformation on several Digimon articles, etc. without any proof. Please respond ASAP. I can't report him right now the WP:AIV because it's backlogged right now. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AIV is usually faster, but in this case, done. Thanks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Peter, how are you? I saw that message to User:Jamie LC says is recjed. Can admins do it only? User:Willking1979 blocked User:Jamie LC for vadimsin-only account because he doesn't know how to delte. Please can you send a message to User:Jamie LC. - L.C Jamie talkback —Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Dear Admin, I would like to confirm that Iaaassi was editing Mures Template in good faith. There was a dispute on the deletion of a template created by me, in which we exposed seriously opposing views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26 After we received the admin's decision, we tried to work out a compromise, and as I see from the edits, Iaaassi wanted to implement a compromise that I proposed to him on my talkpage and I expressed my thank on his talkpage for the good intention. I think he may have simply edited more times than was good. This is not the Romanian-Hungarian edit war, but one of co-operation, so let us be happy with it. The template is good as is now. As I was the author both of the deleted Maros (Mures) County template and the new version of this template, and also had a main part in the discussion, I think I can impartially judge on this issue. It would be ironic that Iaassi is blocked when seeking compromise and undestanding. Rokarudi --Rokarudi 14:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, remember you declined my edit warring report here: [1]

You said that it was not an immediate problem as there was no active edit warring, only chronic. Well now there is, as I said there would be based on my past experiences with that user. Biophys (again as I said he would do) has also now reverted other parts of the article to match his version from September. Can you do something about this now that the edit warring is active or tell me what best to do in this case? Again his sneaky reverts and edit warring have gone on for almost two years, and all attempts at resolution/discussion failed. - YMB29 ( talk) 04:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That was discussion initiated by YMB29. That is how he conducted discussion. Was it really about the article or about me in the wrong place? You can also look at the entire thread. And this is history of the article where YMB recently reverted at least three other editors. Biophys ( talk) 04:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What we have right now is an WP:NPA violations by YMB with regard to already three users: [2]. And I made only two series of edits in this articles today (series to find a compromise version). Biophys ( talk) 04:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Those 3 users are there to help you avoid 3RR. The discussion I initiated was about your reverting in that article. Where is the WP:NPA violation?

You made reverts to match your text from September. A lot of things happened since and you basically ignored everything discussed or edited, as I mentioned in my report. - YMB29 ( talk) 05:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Biophys is now using User:Defender of torch as a tag team partner to avoid 3RR [3] [4]. This user (maybe a sock) never edited the article before. - YMB29 ( talk) 05:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again in my original report there is plenty of evidence of Biophys' sneaky reverting, tag teaming, and attempts to dig up violations. It is all there. That is what his list friends got banned for. - YMB29 ( talk) 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not really the appropriate venue to address these issues. Take it to WP:ANI or back to WP:AN/EW. I am sure Peter would appreciate if his talk page didn't turn into a battlefield. Tiptoety ^talk 05:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I did not mean this to happen. I just wanted to know if my report can be looked at again. - YMB29 ( talk) 05:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. -- otherl left 14:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Peter,

I just went to the Scott Mills entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Mills ) out of vague curiosity and was going to edit some of the grammatical errors but it seems the page has been protected for some time. Is there any way I can edit or should I send suggested edits to you?

Thanks, Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarlill ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

You've asked anyone who plans on restoring the information from Stavridis' book to his enter to contact you first. So here I am. I can't see any reason not to have that information there, and plenty of good reasons to have it, including in particular that it has both a personal and professional significance. The IP's claim ( [5]) that it is inaccurate seems like the merest attempt at justification for the continued deletions. His or her claim that it is a copyright violation is clearly false; it's appropriately sourced, and falls under fair use.

I'd be happy to hear your thoughts; I'm trying to see why anyone could object to that material who wasn't already predisposed to argue with Stavridis' interpretation of his family history. (I can understand disagreeing with that--that's neither here nor there--but its appropriateness for inclusion in the article seems indisputable.) I didn't add this info originally, but I do remember checking the Ha'aretz article when it was added, and it checked out. Mundart ( talk) 19:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 20:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting my page. :) Dusti ^SPEAK!! 01:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello - It is you! - I could not find how to access the protection log of who protected and unprotected any page. But, now I know how. Can you unprotect bigfoot?

I posted on some administrative unprotect page and to some other poor guy (Killiondude) who I thought had protected it - but he had just put up some kind of protected message and had not in fact protected it.

I see that over 500 people have bigfoot on their watch list - so could you try to unprotect it for a while?

Also - can you nominate me for administrator? I would like to be able to protect and unprotect things on my own. I think I could do a good job. I have done some work in the "Sandbox".

Thanks! 99.150.255.75 ( talk) 20:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Helo - one more thing - the Loch Ness Monster and the Yeti pages are currently unprotected and they're definitely not more or less known than bigfoot as I'm sure you know. This link leads to a recording of bigfoot and the loch ness monster analyzed with the King James version English Bible Code. [6] It sounds pretty crazy doesn't it - but British Columbia is in Canada. 99.150.255.75 ( talk) 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yow - I see I was mistaken - the bigfoot page has been protected since August 2008.

That is 18 months already. Is that the longest any page on Wikipedia has been semi-protected for? Is there a way to check? I would guess that all of those IP's have either signed up for user accounts or stopped trying to edit the bigfoot article by now - Is there an easy way to cross-check to see if when the bigfoot article was protected, the IP vandals started editing the loch ness monster article?

I don't want to come across as a whiney complainer like "Why can IP editors edit the loch ness monster page but not the bigfoot page?" Although I now see that the loch ness monster was protected for a month - but will be unprotected tomorrow. I think it would be good if all of the Cryptids Cryptid became unprotected tomorrow. I see that the bigfoot page has 500 watchers while the loch ness monster page has 200 watchers. Do you know why? Why do some many people watch the page if it is protected? Is there a way for me to see who the watchers are?

I'd like to let them know that the page is protected and maybe they could watch something else. The Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster could do with more watchers. I guess maybe since Bigfoot (the Bigfoot) is from North America and because this is the English Wikipedia that is why more people watch bigfoot. I'd guess that on the Scottish Wikipedia that there are more Loch Ness Monster watchers than bigfoot watchers and likewise for the Nepalese Wikipedia for the Yeti.

Thanks again, 99.150.255.75 ( talk) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One last thing to set your mind at ease - I am not an IPVandal in case you were worried that I was trying to get the bigfoot page unprotected so I could vandalize/vandalise (or however it is spelled - see I don't even know how to spell vandalize) 99.15.0255.75 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I did check the Scottish Wikipedia and they don't have the bigfoot article protected and the bigfoot article is much smaller than the Loch Ness Monster article (they call the Loch Ness Monster "Nessie"). See here: [7]

Bigfit, aften cryed as Sasquatch, is an alleged ape-like craituir steyin in forests, mainly in the Pacific Northwast region o North Americae. Bigfit is aften described as a muckle, hairy, bipedal humanoid. Mony believers in its existence contend that similar craituirs are foond athort the Yird unner different regional names, maist prominently the Yeti o the Himalayas.

Do you know how to see how many people are watching a page on the Scottish Wikipedia? I couldn't find a spot. Don't worry if you don't read Scottish - It you sound the Scottish words out while "growling" they frequently sound like an English word (and make the letter i sound like a long ee). 99.150.255.75 ( talk) 04:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have much luck on the Nepalese Wikipedia: [8] As expected, I did get a lot of results when I searched for Yeti and only one result when I searched for bigfoot. Unhappily for me, Nepalese is harder for English speakers to learn than Scottish. 99.150.255.75 ( talk) 04:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

About 19 years ago, I did see the Dali Lama in Houston Texas. 99.150.255.75 ( talk) 04:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello - I saw the IP Vandal Template when I edited your page:

    Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page:
    Template:IPvandal (view source) (semi-protected)

But when I used it above - a lot of the links are red (ip address and talk), show up empty (contributions) or don't work (http, RDNS). Someone should fix the template. 99.150.255.75 ( talk) 03:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange. The links in that template are supposed to work, even for IPs with no contributions. They are mostly external tools that don't rely on contributions to take effect. If you're aware of the problem, you may wish to make a post on the talk page, using {{ editsemiprotected}}. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you would be willing to train me as an SPI clerk. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 04:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kevin. I would rather train you when I have full access to the internet restored; currently there are going to be intermittant periods of inactivity for at least a week. I would be more than happy to train you once I'm fully back. In the meantime, you may wish to make a request on WP:SPI/CN unless you don't mind waiting for a bit. :-) Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait the period as I am in college and I have tons of free time. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 03:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you gotten full internet access restored yet? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 03:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The bot seems to be down again. Could you give it a nudge? Shubinator ( talk) 06:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently using a different computer due to some technical issues involving my internet. Will be done soon. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the bot appears to have an internal fault that I cannot fix. The URL tells me that the bot "is stopped", but it isn't blocked or autoblocked. I'm imagining Nixeagle shut it down, but I can't be sure. Sorry. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That confirms our worst fears. We think something changed on the toolserver's side so the bot won't work any more without a modification to the code. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#DYK bot crash. Anyways, thanks for trying. Shubinator ( talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. :-( I'll bear in mind the update times and help perform updates when necessary. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello - can you read my reasons above for unprotecting bigfoot? You protected it 18 months ago and it is still protected. Thanks! 99.150.255.75 ( talk) 15:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I did report the IPVandal template on a talk page.

99.150.255.75 ( talk) 15:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a trial unprotection. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I added some wikipedification [9] and already someone is complaining [10].

I think I'll take a break.

Thankyou though! 99.150.255.75 ( talk) 17:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the specific editor has used his ability to write from various places in the past (as Alarichus) I believe that the investigation should not be closed so simply [ [11]]. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• You can request a second checkuser opinion, if you like, but the checkuser evidence seemed pretty conclusive. Remember that   CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and checkusers cannot see the person behind the computer. I agree with your behavioural conclusions, but the check itself does not indicate this - Alison ^❤ 12:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What Alison said. :) Remember that in the last case, while Sarandioti had many different IPs, there were at least 4 IP matches between Sarandioti and Alarichus, despite the travelling. I also agree with your behavioural evidence, which is why I endorsed, but there seems little point in keeping the SPI case open for now. If the edits themselves are problematic, you could file an request fo comment on user conduct or seek admin opinions at the administrators' noticeboard. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 12:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the advice. Alexikoua ( talk) 16:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the conclusion of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti/Archive case and I am offended that you may insinuate a Meatpuppetry case. I have NEVER communicated with anybody off wiki and I feel offended by even you mentioning that possibility. sulmues ( talk) --Sulmues 13:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't insinuate anything of the sort. I said I found the behavioural evidence good enough to warrant a check. PeterSymonds ( talk) 13:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi I noticed you deleted this page. Is their a similar page? Thanks -- Snowleopard100 ( talk) 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There isn't really. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide, it does not offer advice on promoting websites. You may be able to find similar advice through a web-search; I'm sure there are plenty of sites offering this advice. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 18:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to let you know I heard your response. Thanks for the time-- Snowleopard100 ( talk) 19:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Can't you see that the page was being worked on? Emeraude ( talk) 16:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Disambiguation pages are only needed when there are multiple distinctions (4 or more is usually a good indicator). Otherwise, the most common usage is used as the main article, and a second article is disamiguated in the title using parentheses. Unless you want to create a disambiguation page with these multiple entries, it's not necessary. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Except it's not a disambig page. Anyway, just about finished now. Emeraude ( talk) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, must've misread. My apologies. PeterSymonds ( talk) 18:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Peter. I noticed that there are now several requests for re-protection on Talk:Bigfoot. Apparently they got a resurgence of vandalism. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

I see; thanks for alerting me. Given the frequecy of IP vandalism already, I've reprotected the page. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 06:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to edit an article while at home, logged on as my registered user, and got this:

You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from 218.186.8.0/24 has been disabled by PeterSymonds for the following reason(s):

vandalism This block has been set to expire: 02:26, 22 May 2010. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail. Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

I tried to edit my own home page to add this appeal to unblock, but I got the same message! I had to go out to a different computer to make this change today. Please unblock my IP. Ordinary Person ( talk) 01:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that NuclearWarfare has already granted him ipblock-exempt, probably after seeing this post. — Soap — 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the rollback, wrong page, sorry. JackSchmidt ( talk) 02:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could lend a hand and look into the above case. You handled the Floyd Vivino case I was involved with last week really well and I was hoping you could help me with this. Sigrit20 has frequently vandalized the 24-7 Spyz article by removing any and all update information on their former drummer, Anthony Johnson despite it having proper citations. After a warning by a fellow user, he did actually stop. Tonight though, I have reason to believe that he has created a new account at Multigrain89 tonight only to continue the same exact disruptive edit. Both accounts seem to be created exclusively for this edit. I've already given him two warnings tonight but I don't foresee it ending. Thanks in advance for any assistance you may be able to give. NJZombie ( talk) 02:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I had to block-and-rush, sorry! As Spitfire said, the sockpuppetry is quite obvious, so I've blocked both indefinitely. Thanks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There are several reasons to delete the passage about Floyd's current ativities:

1. It's an invasion of his privacy. Floyd only gets a night off once a week and he spends it playing piano at a local restaurant. It's no one's business but his own.

2. It's not true. He doesn't perform at Colucci's every Tuesday. He goes there on his nights off when he's not working somewhere else. For example, in March he is booked elsewhere on all but two Tuesdays.

3. Wikipedia's policies specifically prohibit using the site for promotional purposes. To publish this information is promoting the restaurant.

I'd appreciate your cooperation in removing the offending paragraph.

Thanks in advance.

Artie Delmar ( talk) 15:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Artie Delmar

I will speak to the user. PeterSymonds ( talk) 18:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Given that someone had A) just relisted in the same day and B) someone else had tagged the article for rescue the same day you closed it, I think leaving it go for a few more days would be useful. I strongly suspect there are reliable reviews out there (the system is actually very well known among hard-core RPG people). I probably should have tagged it for rescue myself when I !voted. Could you reopen it and see if things improve? Hobit ( talk) 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No; the discussion had lasted long enough, and I saw quite a clear consensus, which is why I closed it. If you find the sources, feel free to draft a userspace article that is substantially sourced, or visit deletion review. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you please move to the article incubator (or my user space) then? Hobit ( talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, at User:Hobit/F.A.T.A.L. (role-playing game). Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Peter, could you warn or block user Szater? He still edit war and uses unreliable sources. LeinaD (t) 21:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Done; 31 hours as a first warning. Will escalate if he continues. Thanks, PeterSymonds ( talk) 21:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering under what category of CSD you deleted Dan Ginnane? I thought the WP:IAR deletions were put on hold until the WP:BLPRFCis completed? Are you aware of WP:Australia's drive to reference all of our unreferenced BLP articles - a task that we are about 75% complete? Please desist with the IAR CSDs and use the existing criteria for speedy deletion, or propose deletion, or take it to AFD. If you think something is controversial, delete the section, not the article... at least until Jimbo/Arbcom/the RFC make a decision. Thank you. The-Pope ( talk) 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Lack of asserted or verified notability, as well as controversial, unsourced statements, is reason enough to delete an article. It had already gone through PROD and was simply recreated without improvement. It isn't fair to leave such articles hanging around indefinitely. When you would like to source this article, please let me know. PeterSymonds ( talk) 23:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read the google cache version and can't see anything controversial other than one line on leaving a job and maybe the poker section. No one would have complained if you had just deleted those sections. I would suggest that you re-read the CURRENT wording of WP:BLPDEL and stick to it, as your deletion was out of order. I quote: Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion is normally a last resort.

If you aren't allowed to PROD an article twice, then an unlabelled CSD on A7 grounds (G4 can't apply to prods and the google cache version has nothing I'd classify as G10 in it) is out of process. We've been through this before back in Jan and those protagonists are now working towards the new BLP policy. I would hope an admin as long-standing as yourself can also see that you aren't achieving anything by bending the rules for whatever reason you thought outweighed the existing community concensus and Wikipedia policies. The-Pope ( talk) 08:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Any chance this article could be permanently protected from IPs? I think semi-protection is approprriate. It is irritating having to revert stupid IP edits every day. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 19:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The text of this FA includes the passage, "At the age of seventeen, in 1676, she met and was courted by her future husband, John Churchill." It also says she was born in 1660, so either the age or the date must be wrong. I don't know which – could you have a look? -- JN 466 20:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, I'll check it, thanks. Might take me a day or two because I no longer have that book. PeterSymonds ( talk) 01:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This and this might help; it says they started dancing in 1675, and she refers to love letters she wrote to him when she was 15. I can put that in for you if you are happy with the source; it is a bit elderly. I suspect the reference to age 17 may be because that is how old she was when they were married (1677). -- JN 466 16:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, be my guest. :-) The sources, although ancient, aren't diminished by age. Many of Marlborough's later biographies extensively reference earlier works. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Done: [12]. I slightly weakened the "it is likely he had hoped to take her as a mistress"; Churchill (perhaps out of family loyalty, perhaps because he is more romantically-minded) is adamant their correspondence shows the opposite. -- JN 466 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, Churchill's account isn't the most neutral. Since his time, Field has reviewed Sarah's letters and drawn a different conclusion. Field's work is quite authoritative in a number of ways, and her analysis was quite strong, making her interpretation quite sound. PeterSymonds ( talk) 20:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought it might be so. Feel free to revert that change, if you think it was better before. -- JN 466 20:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No no, your change is fine. :-) Probably sounds more neutral too. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 20:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good evening Mr. Symonds, I'm a nephew of one of the victims of flight 653 of Malasya Airlines. Her husband was a Cuban ambassador in Japan and Malasya at the time. Both die in the plane and I'm trying to get more information about that. I would like to know why the plane was hijacked and who was the target. Sometimes I think the Cuban government had something to do in that issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.150.100 ( talk) 04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Malaysia Airlines Flight 653 gives some details. The identity of the attackers is unknown, and has never been proven. The circumstances and the reasons for the attack remain unsolved. I am sorry I am unable to help further on the matter. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough editors in live time that we can take a chance and lift semi-moderation?

The potential advantage might be that enough people in the Philippines, etc, etc, might be highly motivated to contribute (and might know local news sources, govt sources, etc), but haven't posted before on wiki.

Might be worth taking a chance, or not. I'll defer to your judgment. Cool Nerd ( talk) 23:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea at present, given how recent the event is. The vandalism is excessive when unprotected, not to mention the unsourced edits, POV-pushing and unfactual information. However, if another admin wishes to unprotect it, I won't be too bothered by it. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:ObserverFromAbove reminds me very much of Sarandioti. Definitely not a new user, same tone and interests. He was previously editing from this IP [13], which is obviously a proxy. Athenean ( talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll keep an eye. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! The above mentioned account is following me around vandalizing an article I've recently created [ [14]]. Quite weird behavior for a rookie. He also seems familiar with the reference management from his first edits. Alexikoua ( talk) 22:34, 2 March 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.