User talk:Abecedare/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abecedare. 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.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Mad Men/Conrad Hilton

Thank you! We were frustrated beyond belief with this guy, and couldn't get anywhere. I knew a block would be tricky. Hopefully the page protection will do the job. Drmargi (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. By the way, I noticed that the IP user made similar additions at Jamie King (actor) and List of Mad Men episodes. I don't know whether those are appropriate or not; you and others involved may be in a position to assess them. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Jamie King is mostly fanboy stuff, but fairly harmless, but I gave it a minor edit for tone. The only edit Mad Men episodes was reverted and he hasn't returned to it. Thanks for the tip -- I'll keep an eye on them! The big worry now is whether he'll continue with the article on internal links and use it as license to have an overlinking fest on other pages. Drmargi (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't protect the Internal link article yet, since the subject is frankly unrelated to this content dispute and hopefully the IP will realize that. However, if the user continues to add the unrelated content there, or at other wikipedia pages, those can be protected too, or the IPs blocked while they are active. Abecedare (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I appreciate the explanation. Drmargi (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Block is off, and guess who's back, adding the same content again? He couldn't resist. So far, he's hit Mad Men and internal link, but I daresay it's only a matter of minutes before he gets to Conrad Hilton. IP in use is 168.115.218.139. Drmargi (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

YOU ROCK! Drmargi (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just checking before signing off for the day. Have semi-protected the articles for another two weeks, since the IP user doesn't seem interested in discussing; should give y'all some respite. Abecedare (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there an electronic way to owe someone chocolate? If so, IOU a serious box of Godiva. Drmargi (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't have mentioned chocolates; now I'll be dreaming of that ... Abecedare (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops.... At least they'll be (wait for it...) sweet dreams!! Drmargi (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Abecedare (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WiZeNgAmOtX

Would you restore the editor's ability to edit his talk page. I see no abuse of the talk page and think that they will eventually "get it". Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I do think the editor was abusing the talkpage by continuing to make legal(istic) threats, but I have no problem with continued dialog if you think it may be fruitful. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You there?

Coercorash (talk · contribs) has been warned sufficiently. Article in question is Barelvi - move vandalism, blanking, blanking TP etc. Also has some personal attacks to his credit at User talk:Notedgrant. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He just posted a warning on my page for warning him, guess you aren't online, so if he shows up again, I'll do some forum shopping. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, saw that you did a block, I left a report at WP:AIV as did another editor. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 07:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Coercorash made it pretty easy. The bot will clear the AIV report. Abecedare (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Web squared

An article that you have been involved in editing, Web squared, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web squared. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

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) 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for handling the request I made. In response to your comments: I somewhat agree that the editor's content has merit insofar as it illustrates Maher's skepticism towards prolific vaccination -- but that much was already in the article. The editor was obviously intent on extrapolating and misrepresenting cherry-picked quotes to paint Maher as against science, against medicine and 100% against vaccines - all of which are false. His attitude in his edit summaries and talk page comments leads me to believe further discussion may not be as productive as you had hoped. And now, after your block, he has resorted to Sock Puppeteering as User:DyadTriad to continue the argument. (Or perhaps they are two different people that both edit Allegheny Mountains and other Virginia-centric articles, as well as want to misrepresent Maher's position. Not.) What would you advise as the best course of action? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

About the content: Disregarding the IP's edits, the current section is in poor shape as it relies to a large extent on picking and choosing Bill Maher's quotes from his own show and other appearance. This skates close to WP:OR/WP:Synthesis based on Primary sources. Instead of trying to decipher/interpret Maher's views ourselves, we should use secondary sources like the NYT blog post, and use Maher's quotes only when those have been highlighted by such sources. Anyway, it would be best to discuss such issues on the article talk page with other interested editors (I don't plan to get involved because of other on/off-wiki commitments).

About DyadTriad (talk · contribs): the overlap of interest with ~~76.208.176.194 (talk)~~ 96.231.137.242 (talk · contribs)^corrected and their close appearance at Talk:Bill Maher, is certainly suggestive. But the evidence at present is short of WP:DUCK in my opinion; so it may be best to post a Checkuser request (as possible block evasion). Let me know if you do so, and I'll second the request. Abecedare (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about that section of the article needing some work. I also agree that there is a strong emphasis on video clips of him as sources for information about him (throughout the article, not just the Health section) -- probably because a good share of his notability is based upon his on-air appearances. Inversely, the secondary sources are far fewer. I haven't done much content editing on that article; been mostly vandal-watching, but I'll see if I can spend some time on it and bring it more in line with BLP standards.

As for the sockpuppet of User:96.231.137.242 being User:DyadTriad (I'm not sure why you mentioned 76.208.176.194 above - I don't see any relation suggested there either), that's more than obvious. From the articles edited in common, to the repeated use of only (add info) as an edit summary, to picking up the same Maher argument just minutes after being blocked - no question in my mind. But I also notice that the sock constrained himself to the talk page instead of continuing the edit war on the article, and I consider this a positive sign - so I'm not going to rush to the WP:SPI page. We'll see how things go. Thank you again for your time. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.

I have corrected the IP error above; it was just a matter of incorrect cut-n-paste. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I need to accept your offer to "second the request". I've filed the request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valerius Tygart. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Largest Cities of India

Hi buddy, You removed the template before, i could complete it. I found many countries have details of the largest cities, then why can't India have one template for the same???

I couldn't find any wrong in that. I request you to have words before removing it again.

Makks2010 (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Makks2010, this template was previously discussed at the India talk page, where consensus was that the list was undue in the article, and was replaced by more concise text. If you wish to readd it to the article, please propose it on the article talk page with reasons and we can see if consensus has changed. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

May I nominate you?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Nominations_now_open_for_the_Arbitration_Committee_elections.2C_December_2009

They ask for nominations. May I nominate you? From my dealings with you, you are not an unreasonable person. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but (1) AFAIK nominees for ArbCom nominate themselves, (2) I am not interested in the position now or anytime in the future (it's a crucial but thankless, time-consuming and soul-crushing job, and I prefer being closer to the content). Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my misunderstanding. I thought it was like RFA's. With RFA's, if you self nominate then others say you are bad. I wanted to ask you if you wanted an ArbCom nomination so that you would not have to self nominate. But because you are not interested, nothing needs to be done. Happy editing to you, too! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

Please see Talk:Judaism#Lift_protection. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

I've unblocked Corruptioninmedicine (talk · contribs) as the page is now protected and the edit war is over. I wish the drama on ANI related to this was as well and I hope you're ok with this. Toddst1 (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I doubt the edit war will resume. I am currently working on a neutral sourced version of the article here. Once I have got a bare-boned version ready, I'll post a request at ANI to replace the current version and unprotect the article. Feel free to lend a hand in the effort! Abecedare (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action

I'd just like to thank you for taking action against By78. I have found that it was impossible to reason with said user based on past encounters and that he seems intent on his POV pushing and making edits without any consensus. Vedant (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't encountered User:By78 before (afaik), but the more I saw of the user and sockIP's edits the more obvious it became that he/she was essentially trolling here, and the previous blocks hadn't stopped that. Hopefully the month long break will help; else he likely to be indeffed soon. Abecedare (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there were a few lengthy discussions on the ANI noticeboards a while back but the main issue is that he was technically following the rules of Wikipedia (i.e. with regards to the citation of sources and permissible content) and thus his edits weren't seen as POV pushing even though his bias was quite apparent. I do agree though that some India-related articles need some balancing/clean-up but I'm not so sure they need By78's intervention. Vedant (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have looked only at the editors recent editing history: Edits like this this, this, and this may be forgiven if made by a newbie; but such POV pushing and BLP violations from a known disruptive editor is plain trolling. Abecedare (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand but in the past By78's claims have been extremely racist, inflammatory, and insulting in nature. I simply posted the message on his talk page in response to a message he posted on someone else's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

POV forks

So, what should we do about Peaceful Protest Movement and 1987 Disputed State Elections? Ignoring the meaninglessness of the titles, they are fairly obvious pov forks (copy-pasted from the original articles). My inclination is to delete them and see what happens. What do you think? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not just redirect them back to the main article, and AFD them if the user protests with such actual arguments (as opposed to simple reverts) ? Will prevent another round of ZOGM Admin abuse! :-) I'll watchlist the pages too ( oh. the irony! ). Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Then we can delete them as implausible redirects. Diabolical! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. (Make that 2002!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Diabolical ? I thought of it as common sense (seriously!). By waiting a day or two, the page creator has chance to raise objections if they think the article should stand on its own. Due process without unnecessary bureaucracy. Abecedare (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Technically speaking, the 1987 Disputed State Elections shouldn't even be a redirect, the correct title would be Jammu and Kashmir state assembly election, 1987 per CarTick's standards. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

True, and because of that the redirect is a valid candidate for R3 deletion, once we are reasonably sure that we are not missing some argument for keeping the article. Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

move help

could you pls help me move from Viluppuram (Lok Sabha constituency) to Tindivanam (Lok Sabha constituency). I need to separate them. --Car Tick 01:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks a lot. --Car Tick 01:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

so much better

and you get to see in your watchlist that a new section was created! -SpacemanSpiff 03:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Poverty in India

My edit was to reverse a biased information. Poverty rate is a domestic issue. Only the Indian government has the authority to define poverty level, not world bank. This is a issue of sovereignty. You should understand this because you are Indian. V.Chowla (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a welcome note on your talkpage. Please look through the listed policies, especially WP:NPOV. There is no issue of biased sources of sovereignty here. If you have other objections or suggestion, discuss them at Talk:Poverty in India. Abecedare (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Khatri

Can you semi-PP for a bit? Same IP hopping blocked user comes back and makes the same changes, reverted over 30 times by different editors recently, changes Indo Aryan (per TP history) to Indo Scythian without any refs etc. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 02:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thx, also, gentle reminder on R. K. Narayan peer review ;) I have some things to address from Johnbod's comments, that's going to take me a while as sourcing is almost non-existent there. Most of Drmies comments have been addressed though. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 02:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Had started reading it, but got waylaid with other work. A couple of high level observations: the language gets a bit informal in some places, and some critiques need better attribution to avoid weasel/POV concerns. Will expand on this on the PR page once I re-read the article; will get it done by Tuesday. Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, take more time if you wish, it'll take me at least till the end of next week to find something to address Johnbod's comments. I thought I'd attributed pretty much everything, let me look through again on that. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't waste time addressing my comment snippet yet. I'll make sure that I provide examples when I review it properly, and it's even possible that some of the issues have already been handled since I last looked at it. Abecedare (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Input please

Would like your input here please. Note: This is a draft, to be kept in my namespace until the editor is off their block and their new contributions can be reviewed. Frmatt (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Watch out...

...you false blocker with a narrow ideological point of view! With a bloated and useless 2000-page watchlist I thought you could use this alert ;-) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's so kind of him to give a 30 day notice; now I and the rest of the censor-cabal can plot and plan on how to face this grave threat to our nefarious designs!

PS: I culled my list to ~1000 pages, so now I'll be twice as efficient. Cheers and happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lingam

Repeated vandalism at the article. I request you to take necessary action. I am not reverting the anon per WP:3RR. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page and reverted the vandalism. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of those edits. THe first I saw was literate and plausible so I asked the first editor of the Monier-Williams page for sources. Upon researching those I found page 221 and page 222. Read the passages starting from The consequence was that Hinduism... on. This is a primary source of words written by Monier possibly expressing his opinion about Evangelizing and seeking weak point in these other religions. Only thing we could do is quote the passages and place in his article... or not. I'll look for a secondary reliable source that analyzes his religious views and intent and if it effected his translations. I'm a sporadic editor so no promises of success. Mostly I wanted you to see where this edit warrior's views could originate. (I told him to source it! meh...) Alatari (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, yeah he had a definite abhorrence of some of Buddhist teachings. Alatari (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not surprising that the religious views of Monier Williams, Max Muller, and other 19th century Anglo scholars reflected the cultural mores of their times and environment, some of which we will find insensitive, and even bigoted, now. It is reasonable to study what these views were, and how they affected (and were affected by!) their translations and interpretations of Hindu and Sanskrit literature. But to argue that these persons were not Sanskrit scholars, or that evangelism was the sole determining motive for their work, as the IP suggests, is plain ridiculous, and culturally illiterate POV pushing. Instead of looking at snippets of their writings, without appreciation of context, what we need is to look at secondary scholarly sources that analyze them. I have not searched for such sources, but am certain they exists, and a JSTOR search should be able to find them. Such material, properly sourced and paraphrased, will make for useful addition in their biographical articles - but is irrelevant on pages such as Lingam, unless there is particular dispute regarding MW's translation of that term (which there isn't; compare his dictionary definitions, with say V.S. Apte's). Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that the IP had also been busy at Monier Monier-Williams. His edit-summaries ([1], [2], [3]) are revealing! Abecedare (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed his edits there; I have it watched for now. The one phrase that he inserted into Lingam was: Monier-Williams declared from the outset that the conversion of India to the Christian religion should be one of the aims of orientalist scholarship. which is a sentence added by Paul Barlow 2005. He told me his source is Nirad C. Chaudhuri's book , Scholar Extraordinary, The Life of Professor the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Muller. the speech where Monier took the chair that Muller was deserving of. I cannot access that book. I can't access much of what's on JSTOR. I agree that this information belongs on his biography when sourced properly. At least this vandal has a bit of a sense of humour. Alatari (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That information seems accurate (as I would expect from Paul Barlow's edits), and though I have not seen Nirad's book, The British: their religious beliefs and practices, 1800-1986 (pages 85-94) also discusses MMW's orthodoxy relative to Muller's, and has some discussion of the merits and pitfalls of his writings. There should be many such, and more detailed, sources available to build up these articles, if someone takes the interest. Unfortunately I don't have the time currently to make the effort, but if you wish to take a stab and need access to particular archived articles, I can try looking them up at JSTOR and email them to you. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Everytime I come back to Wikipedia my free time is nullified. This would actually be the responsibility of that person if they would just make an account and become legit. If it's not inappropriate we could post our discussion on of the talk pages. Thanks for the time you have spent. Alatari (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Chennai

Can you add to your watchlist? Strong Tamil POV adds today, not sure if it's going to be long term or if it's a sock of maleabroad. Also, why don't you add either {{talkheader}} or {{Message}} to the top of your page? It's easier to create new messages that way :) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also can you check File:Amlu_bnat_wiki.jpg? It's uploaded on commons as with permission, but the source website says all rights reserved. I reverted the add to Bharatanatyam. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Have Chennai watchlisted, but missed those edits (with 2000+ pages, my watchlist is getting more bloated/useless by the day!). Btw the sentiment expressed is so common, that I wouldn't necessarily put it at the door of Maleabroad. Also nominated the image for speedy deletion at commons. Lastly, doesn't the interface/skin you are using have a "new section" or "+" tag on top, to start new sections on talk pages ? I assumed that was universal ... Abecedare (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Tamil POV is a bit too common. I solved part of the watchlist problem with User:SpacemanSpiff/POVWatch, those lower priority pages get a look in when I have time, instead of being on my watchlist. For the edits, no, I've never figured how to do that using the preferences setting, and it's not on the normal interface, which is why I added the message template to my TP. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 21:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Through wikipedia I have learned,

For every topic there is a POV.
For every POV there is a counter-POV
There is no difference in POV small enough that editors won't waste hours going hammers-and-tongs over it

It's not that Tamil POV is exceptionally; it's just that many more editors on the web and on wikipedia hail from Tamil Nadu, Bombay (not Maharashtra!), Karnataka etc than say Himachal Pradesh, Orissa or Bihar. Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, meant a bit too common here :) I probably don't notice the Karnataka POV as I'm unfamiliar with any place outside of Bangalore, and really don't know much about Kannadiga stuff. Kerala articles have a different issue altogether, political soapboxing, except maybe the odd contributor like that Stopthenonsense chap. Sometimes I wonder if de-POVing the caste articles is even worth it, and am considering stepping back from those. No one outside of those castes is even likely to care about it, so it probably doesn't contribute much to the "sum of knowledge" concept, and therefore not really a useful return of eyeballs per line written! -SpacemanSpiff 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have grown very cynical of caste related articles after my experience at Vishwakarma (caste) (compare the current version, especially the Pillars of Indian Culture and Civilization section with this sourced stub). After having spent 10s of hours on the article talk page trying to explain sourcing and NPOV standards to different well-meaning but clueless users (with little effect) - I realized that (a) my time would be better spent elsewhere on/off wiki, (b) it is perhaps more helpful for a reader to see the article in its current state (which any sensible reader will know enough to distrust), than have me partially clean it up, which would give it the outward appearance of trustworthiness. Of course, this is very bad attitude to have (if everyone adopted it, the project would collapse!), and I don't mean to preach it - so this is just my experience, and not my advise. Abecedare (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, but there's a lot more one can do without having to pull one's hair out trying to de-POV. Almost all the Indian women cricketers didn't have pages before, and no one even stops by to fix my typos on them, let alone edit war with me, so it's a little more satisfying out there. That and Indian English literature appear to be two topics that I can probably just take over and better spend my time on, so it's just a question of not succumbing to this!-SpacemanSpiff 21:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is supposed to be a hobby and I'd rather waste time having fun :-) And, fo course, there's this. Abecedare (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

let us not forget it can be fun fighting the POV warriors especially the ones who has no clue what wikipedia means and how it works. I dont know about you guys, but I find vandalism and most POV kind of funny (not always) and has often made me laugh loud. agree it can get annoying sometimes. just take it easy. --Car Tick 22:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

True, in some case, to some extent etc. User:Dbachmann even has a theory that trolls instigate and hence drive editing on wikipedia. I am yet to be entirely convinced but see the point; you can read the discussion here (start from the 10:47 UTC post, which begin "I hear you"). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On a couple of articles, I just brought them to Dbachmann's notice and decided to leave it at that. He, as apparent from his editing, has better skills in this matter than I do.-SpacemanSpiff 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

<---Ironic, eh? Few days after this conversation, an RfC opens on a similar issue. Also weird is that I originally looked at Kalarimaster's history to check on Misssss (talk · contribs) during our Tamil bell discussion with Arvind. I thought it wasn't the same user then, and yesterday this one was also blocked as a sock of Kalarimaster! -SpacemanSpiff 17:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP = Kalarimaster was a great catch! I haven't encountered this sock-drawer before, and wouldn't have made the identification, although it was pretty clear that the IP was not a "newbie". Abecedare (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This chap has a bit of an odd behavior, he normally has three accounts at the same time, one focused on language articles - Tamil, Telugu, scripts, languages of India etc; another focused on Malayalam stuff; third focused on caste stuff, specifically TamBrahms! So, generally speaking, the same editors will hardly interact with the three different socks inserting similar POV in different parts of the project! Now I know that he lives in Austria, so as far as IP socking goes, it's possibly easier to identify. BTW, Telugu language seems to be getting some attention from Jaggi81 (talk · contribs) who was blocked last week (after you tagged his image copyvios and I reverted his mass deletions), his IP also edited (just a case of being logged out I think, not socking), but the edits are a bit odd, some sourced to offline books, some sourced to a tripod.com version of a book; it's the content I'm concerned about since this user has a history of "I don't like it" so it goes and so on. Since dab's out on break, maybe you want to take a look? ;) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 19:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Have to be AFK soon, and haven't looked at it deeply, but at least some of it is cut-and-paste copyvio of an usenet posting! Abecedare (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Interface puzzle

Missed this: "For the edits, no, I've never figured how to do that using the preferences setting, and it's not on the normal interface"
What skin are you using ? Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

monobook -SpacemanSpiff 21:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I use too. Guess it's is one of the additional scripts you are using. Let me explore this a bit (just curious!) Abecedare (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Weird. I copied over your monobook.js and I still see a + to the right of edit on the top. Would you mind telling what browser you use and what options you have turned on under My preferences -> Gadgets ? Feel free to say no! Abecedare (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Typically use Firefox. Occasionally, at work I might use IE, and at home Safari. In editing gadgets I don't have "Add a sidebar menu..."; interface gadgets, I only have "Open external links..."; interface gadgets:editing, I have "Add edit link to lead" and "Allow up to 50..."; nothing on library gadgets. I'm guessing, most people have my settings (and adding the {{message}} to my TP started taking me to the correct line on new messages, as unlike most people, I actually change the subject to the new title :) -SpacemanSpiff 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried with all your settings, but I still see the new section tab. Remains a puzzle. Will add a talkbox soon, since other users are also likely to be facing the same issue. Abecedare (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Allriskinrev

Sorry to bother you with this, but Allriskinrev is evading the block, signing as Allriskinrev, but editing as 87.102.4.203 (talk · contribs) [4] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I already saw that and blocked the IP. Will also extend the user block. If it continues, I can semi-protect the article talk page for a short time, even though that is generally-not-done. Let me know if you think that would be warranted. Abecedare (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you, will do. His last post seems to say he intends to continue reverting anything he thinks introduces bias. See his latest point explaining again what a "Mac edit" is (scroll to the end). [5] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Curious. Any idea where the user is getting the Mac editing philosophy from ? Abecedare (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A previous editor called Mac-something posted something about bias that he agreed with, so he said from now on, if he sees an edit that he thinks adds bias, he'll revert it wholesale with a "Mac edit" edit summary -- so we all know it's a bias-reverting revert! The silly thing is that his latest post says all he wanted was an extra bit of a quotation added, which I'd have been fine with. But instead of adding it, or saying that's all he needed, he kept reverting wholesale, so I think it's a little bit POINTy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Some facts worth bearing in mind:

User:Macphysto has been an important editor to the PL page in the past.
SlimVirgin introduced elements to the lead without discussing on the talk page
Balance, after talk page discussion, was added to these elements
Slimvirgin edited the lead to skew this balance
Macphysto made a long and thoughtful contribution to the talk page discussion the swelling of the lead
Slimvirgin made no reply
Allriskinrev enacted Macphysto's thoughts
Up to this point Allriskinrev had been a very timid contributor. During the previously on-going Peer Review process, we had been trying to encourage his contributions as unlike most editors of the page he has access to all the sources &c. almost-instinct 11:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I think this phrasing dispute should be relatively easy to resolve on the article talkpage, especially given how many experienced and good faith editors are involved in the discussion. I am sure Allriskinrev means well too, but he had to be blocked since he was edit-warring using various sock IPs, perhaps under the misapprehension that his "Mac strategy" was justified. I am afraid that if he continues applying that tactic once his block expires, he is likely to be blocked again. Perhaps you can discuss wikipedia editing norms with him on his talk page; he may be receptive to advice from you since you have collaborated before. I am even open to undoing the block early, if he demonstrates a clearer understanding of what constitutes edit warring, and affirms that he'll avoid it. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Australian Vaccination Network

On November 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Australian Vaccination Network, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valerius Tygart

Hey there. I saw that you were familiar with the editing patterns of this user. The checkuser results have come back in, so I was wondering if you could take a look through the evidence to see if there is indeed any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The user did use his named accounts to evade a block on the user's IP 96.231.137.242 and edit the article Bill Maher, which had led to the IP block; so there was at least some abuse. I have asked the user at User_talk:Valerius Tygart if he has any explanation; unless one is forthcoming I plan to at least indef. all the sock accounts. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I rechecked and verified that the user was indeed evading a block using socks, and using multiple accounts to edit common pages. So I have indeffed the socks; blocked the main account for 31 hours, and proposed closure of the SPI case. Abecedare (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful work. Cheers, NW (Talk) 03:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

FAR question

If an article is up at FAR, should changes be discussed at FAR, or can we just go about talk page discussions and edit the article, providing a summary at the FAR discussion? User:Sodabottle and I are hoping to save Flag of India from delisting, but there's a hell of a lot of work needed on that one, and it seems pointless to clutter up the FAR page and get it to a point where a FAR discussion has some meaning. At this point, the article should be a straight delist. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's no dispute and the article just has a big black hole or referencing desert then it suffices to just put one line saying you will add stuff and do it. Most articles at FAR need a complete overhaul so there isn't any need to state these obvious and uncontroversial rationalese for changing everything YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 17:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(after ec!) Yellowmonkey would be the perfect person to ask this! FWIW, I too think discussing the details on the article talk page would be a better idea; just provide a link at the FAR page so that others know that the article is being worked on. Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at the article, and it would have to be essentially re-written to be retained as a FA. I would suggest that you completely ignore the current content and structure of the article, and start by looking for reliable sources on the topic. Only then should you begin work on the article based on what they say and how they say it; simply trying to reference statements in the current version and dealing with MOS issues will just engrain content that may neither be comprehensive, nor balanced. The good news is that this is a pretty narrow topic so if you can get your hands on 1-2 good sources, that should suffice. And the article already contains good SVG images, which would otherwise have taken much time to recreate. Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can access JStor, here's an article that outlines the history of the origins of the flag. Be forewrned though - it seems to be written in postmodernist jargon. I'll be busy over the weekend, but should be able to join in working on the article by Monday. (Abecedare, apologies for using your talk page as a forum - I stalk it too.) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I know, I was looking at Nichalp's FA version as a starting point to redo the article. There's also too much recentism with a focus on the Jindal case, and using that as a benchmark for a lot of info, as opposed to documenting it as a transition point. Stein and also Kulke have some info on the flag history, not a lot, but that could be used. Anyways, as suggested by the two of you, I'll leave a note on the FAR discussion saying that the article is being worked on, and to judge it after some changes. cheers. PS. SBC-YPR, will have something for you by Monday :) -SpacemanSpiff 18:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

SBC, your input is always welcome,here.

Spaceman, if you need access to any particular papers archived at JSTOR I can email them to you. The current sourcing in the article is horrendous: newspaper articles, government websites and primary sources (which are ok in small quantities), Congress party website, and generic websites like Flags of the world and funmunch.com! Abecedare (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Will probably sandbox a structure and search for source titles. Once I identify sources I need, I'll contact you for access. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How am I biased?

Why are my edits no good? India's rising power is for all to see. It will be a super power by 2020. I read these in the Indian newspapers. My edits on Arihant and other articles are all backed up by the Indian newspapers and are not just my personal views. Some in the West cant accept India, but that is not my problem V.Chowla (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You exhibit your bias quite efficiently right here. No one cares where India will be (on wikipedia), it matters where it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Chowla, please see WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. If you want to cite opinion and commentary about how the submarine development is perceived, at least (1) find a reliable and noteworthy source for that opinion, and (2) attribute the opinion to that source. For example, it may be okay to say, "Expert X said that the induction of Arihant class submarines were a sign of strength of India's innovative industries and technology sectors", assuming that Expert X opinion is notable in this case; but simply adding unsourced commentary as you are doing is not appropriate. Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

I have no idea how this makes sense in the section where you put it. Could you explain? Hans Adler 16:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it represented another example of referring to "invisible they" who OR claims who he has been communicating with and who support his position. Do you think this is not correct, or not clear ? If so, it would be better for me to remove it. Let me know. Abecedare (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I just read it for the third time and I think I see what you mean now. The problem is that in your section there is a strong implication that the "invisible they" have a high authority. They don't always do in Ottava's appeals of this kind, but that's what you are featuring in this section. This aspect is completely missing here, and the additional twist that Ottava is now arguing against an Arbcom member made me look for ways in which Ottava might be claiming that Newyorkbrad was agreeing with him. So I got very confused.

So – I think it would be prudent to remove it or clarify that it's not a typical example and that he is using it against Newyorkbrad. Btw, it looks as if we might be getting a better example also from this case. I am waiting for a response from Lar. Hans Adler 17:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have removed the link; if 18 diffs don't prove the point, 19 won't either. :-)

Digressive aside: I started this section of evidence when I saw this edit by OR at WT:FAC (which is on my watchlist), and I recalled seeing similar claims before, through the corner of my eye, so to speak (since I have not really never interacted with OR directly). Initially I thought OR's tactic was to appeal to Arbcom and other authority figures to support his argument; having looked at it more deeply now, I think he simple appeals to any invisible, and I think non-existent, support he can think of when he sees his argument failing (meybe we need a corrolary to Godwin's law :-) ). I have tried to re-jigger my introductory text to reflect this nuance, although I have left the title unchanged since it is correct (though not comprehensive), and has already been linked in several places. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The FAC diff looks like a really good example to me as it's a factual statement and Arbcom should be able to determine whether it's true or misleading. I have taken up the more general aspect in my false consensus effect section. Personally I think that he believes the stuff that he is making up. Hans Adler 17:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I hadn't realised you'd earlier added and then removed that diff - but actually, it should probably stay. Granted, it is a little unlike the others in that there are no references to the authority of the lurkers, as per usual, but certainly, if he is prepared to keep doing this kind of thing even in the case itself, it shows we have a hopeless case :) Moreschi (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with it either ways. Hopefully the arbcom members will read and evaluate the evidence in totality to judge OR's behavior, rather than see them as individual legal briefs written to prove narrow points in isolation. Abecedare (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Passing on what Nichalp had once given me.

		The Order of the Upholder of Wiki
		I Fowler&fowler, award Abecedare this barnstar for upholding wikipedia's core goals and values. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks F&f. T'is a bit embarrassing though. :-)

We both are getting somewhat old-and-hoary, 'cause I couldn't help but read the second paragraph of your post here with a feeling of nostalgia for the mythical good-old-days (even though we both constantly argue for the new standards!). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

:) "Time you old gypsy man, Will you not stay". I had memorized that in childhood. It took many decades before it had any meaning. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this award! An ideal admin. --59.182.65.2 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy

Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, remember when you restricted this user to 1rr? Guess what, he's edit warring again, please see the history of this article. If you need specific diffs, I can supply them.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing that Radiopathy is unable to follow the restriction despite the several blocks s/he has received. however since the edit is a bit stale I'll remind them of the 1RR restriction, and not block for now. Abecedare (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to clarify that on the page. You said you were blocking them.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Abecedare (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome... and I didn't even notice that 'seemed' typo. My dyslexia must have corrected it.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, you may wish to clarify what 1rr means. This user apparently thinks, given their edits, that it means they can only make one revert per day, versus a single revert regarding the edit, then discussing instead of further reverting, as described at WP:1RR.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, the user is now denying they were edit warring, in violation of their 1rr restriction. This appears that they are either trying to evade the restriction and, for a lack of better words, 'play dumb', or they don't understand some key thing of the restriction. To save you the work(he is asking for diffs), here is the version reverted to, here is the first revert, and here is the second revert, which violates his 1rr restriction.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Two clarifications:

The probation on Radiopathy only specifies 1 revert/day limit; this is closer in spirit to WP:3RR language rather than the WP:1RR language. So Radiopathy can possibly make the same revert once every day, but doing so will be gaming the system and just as specified at WP:EW/WP:1RR can lead to blocks for disruoption.
I did see Radiopathy's demand for diffs and warning on their talk page. In my opinion, Radiopathy has been amply warned, and if they continue to disregard those warnings and edit-war instead, their account can be blocked. However, I don't think it is worthwhile to join in the game, and trying to convince Radiopathy that they are under the sanctions and they violated them at Abbey Road. Lets just focus on the future behavior and respond accordingly.

Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My bad then. Alright, seeing as the matter is presently solved, I see no real reason to continue this, unless of course they attempt to further game the system by reverting that IP on that article.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kanhopatra

Since there have been doubts about the "completeness" of the article, I am not planning a FAN this year. Could you request the Tulpule book in your library, before anyone does that in Jan. so the completeness can be checked. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the online system doesn't allow me to request checked-out items. I'll visit the library physically next week, and find out if I can put the reference on hold somehow (havent tried that before with this library). The book is : "A History of Indian literature / edited by Jan Gonda." Volume 9, Fasc. 4. Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A favour, please

Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is regarding the discussion with Daedalus969 above. Please be aware that this editor has a reputation for being "bitey", to borrow one of his own phrases, and for having an interest in my doings on Wikipedia that far exceeds anything any editor should have to endure here - please see the following discussions: [6], [7].

Please also look at this instance of edit warring which I emailed you about and you never responded: [8], [9], [10].

Please also look at his block log and the reasons for the blocks.

It's appalling that you would take a known disruptive editor at his word, rather than doing a minimum of fact checking. I would appreciate if you would allow an admin that I trust to oversee the rest of my 1RR restriction. I have asked User:Gwen Gale if she'd want to do it. I trust her to call me on any actual violations, which are few and rarely intentional, and I know she has the insight to understand when someone truly is gaming the system. Radiopathy •talk• 02:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy, If you have concerns about Daedalus969's current actions on any article, you are certainly welcome to bring them up here, or to the attention of any other admin. However his conduct or block log does not in any way excuse your edit-warring and recent violation of the 1RR restriction at Abbey Road (which I confirmed for myself; and didn't just take Daedalus969's word).

As should be obvious, I don't really keep an eye on your contributions, and look them up only when some problem is brought to my attention. If Gwen Gale and other admins can actively review your editing, and provide you guidance when needed, that would be most welcome. Of course if you violate your current restriction, any admin may block your account to prevent further disruption to wikipedia - I continue to hope that you will ~~reform~~^{use discussion pages more often} and not provide us with a need to do that. Abecedare (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd take a look at my whole editing history. There are literally hundreds of positive contributions for every error or lapse of judgment; "reform" might not be the most appropriate term here - for me anyway. Radiopathy •talk• 03:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree; "reform" was too broad a brush. I have struck it out above, and replaced with the more specific concern. Abecedare (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a known disruptive editor. For someone that seems to care so much about reading all relevant material, you don't seem to follow your own rules. Perchance, did you happen to actually read my block log? I have only really been blocked once. Here, let my paste a copy of it in it's entirety, and address each of the events(I have bolded the relevant pieces of text that you apparently overlooked. I shouldn't have to say anything else):

- 10:02, November 12, 2009 Golbez (talk | contribs) unblocked "Daedalus969 (talk | contribs)" ‎ (FRIENDLY FIRE)
- 10:01, November 12, 2009 Golbez (talk | contribs) blocked Daedalus969 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (how this has managed to continue for hours is beyond my comprehension. blocking for gross incivility)
- 05:49, October 24, 2009 Hersfold (talk | contribs) unblocked "Daedalus969 (talk | contribs)" ‎ (agreed to be less bitey, discussed in #wikipedia-en-unblock)
- 01:14, October 24, 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Daedalus969 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment)
- 20:48, August 15, 2009 AniMate (talk | contribs) unblocked "Daedalus969 (talk | contribs)" ‎ (no 3rr violation)
- 08:30, August 15, 2009 Nja247 (talk | contribs) blocked Daedalus969 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3RR violation on Jan Jananayagam)
- 04:01, April 1, 2009 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) unblocked "Daedalus969 (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Mistake - Disregard previous block. Sorry!)
- 04:00, April 1, 2009 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) blocked Daedalus969 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Harassment)

Quite simply, if you had bothered to do what you suggested this sysop do, we wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be discussing your personal attack against myself, calling me a known disruptive user. Tiptoety's block was when he was helping me deal with a sockpuppet account, and accidently blocked me instead. Go ahead. Ask him. Nja blocked me for a 3rr violation, when in fact I had not violated 3rr, and was justly unblocked for that very reason. Lastly, Golbez blocked me by accident when he was helping me with another case concerning vandalistic socks. Don't believe me? Ask him.

But to the point. Do not call me a known disruptive user. I am not such, and such is an unfounded personal attack. You've been blocked before for similar concerns, don't make me build another case on you.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Second, concerning the attention I give to your behavior. It is not abnormal. It is the same attention I give to socks, and other users who have abused twinkle the way you have, other users who have called good faith edits vandalism, and called edits they disagreed with vandalism.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969, there is no need to defend your record here. Blaming-the-messenger is a common diversionary tactic that most admins and experienced users recognize, and ignore. It would be best if we all simply concentrated on future actions. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Blaming the messenger"? I want both of you to completely refrain from having any contact with me on Wikipedia in any manner. This includes my talk page, talk pages of articles in which I'm engaged in discussion and - for Daedalus - provocative reverting at articles which I edit regularly. If either of you have any concerns about something you think I may have done, you are to refer it to an uninvolved admin, who will then contact me. Radiopathy •talk• 04:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want me to say anything in regards to you, such as say, responding to you, then don't insult me. Don't slander me. And don't call attention to my block log just to wrongly support your insult. Secondly, I do not provocatively revert you. I browse music and BLP articles. IF I see an edit that violates the MOS, I revert it. You cannot use this 'stay away from me' bit as a catch all to prevent anyone from disagreeing with you. Lastly, you don't set the rules here, Abec does. Just because he gave you the restriction does not make him involved. When your failed 3rr report came into light, he/she came in as an uninvolved admin and gave you the restriction. He has no bias in regards to this, in fact, he should be the one that is contacted in regards to the restriction, seeing as he is the one who set it up, not Gwen.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969, it would be best not to continue the argument or respond to further posts here. One minor clarification: It is perfectly fine for Gwen Gale or any other admin to look over Radiopathy's edits; having formally placed the restriction does not grant me in any privileged role (except that I am already aware of the history, and thus may be able to react slightly more quickly). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy, I am in no way involved in any dispute with you, and will take action as an admin if I find your editing disruptive. Of course, if you have concerns about any of my past or future actions, you are welcome to have them reviewed at any suitable fora. As I said above, if you have concerns about Daedalus969's current actions, you can raise them here or with any other admin you wish. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I told you that if you have a problem with my editing that you are to contact an disinterested admin who will then get in touch with me and/or take appropriate action. I don't feel that you have the maturity nor the perspective to let me edit in peace when that's appropriate. Please take heed. Radiopathy •talk• 05:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please warn him to stop with the passive-agressiveness, re: enjoy your block.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale is an experienced admin, and you should trust her to examine the credibility of any accusations herself, without you having to defend each charge proactively. I'll be honest here: if you respond to every talkpage provocation instead of the other editor's conduct being an issue, suddenly outside observers are likely to think that this is a matter of two editors arguing. So again my advice to you is to simply ignore all these talk page posts, and proceed with editing the actual encyclopedia - a more enjoyable experience altogether! Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't do much article editing because I am generally not good at it. I am not a good article writer, I was never good at essays in the various English classes I've been in, so I only focus on small things, like policy and guidelines.. removing unsourced content.. etc. But that's only a small piece of the pie. Otherwise, I deal primarily in sockpuppet investigations.. I just find the evidence gathering to be easier than anything else... maybe I should look into becoming a clerk, instead of dealing with what I have been.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on small things in article space is fine; it all goes to improving the encyclopedia. Abecedare (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Avatar comments

Thanks for your observation. I changed my comment and removed yours, because leaving it there would only make people look to see what I had originally said. I very much appreciate the kindness you showed by bringing this to my attention. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my concern in the right spirit and addressing it. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Roflmao!

Why are socks of the same person fighting among themselves? Is there a mistake? :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.74.118 (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You should check out WP:LAME, there was one edit war where two socks were warring over the insertion of a comma. Sometimes, sock behavior baffles me.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey checkuser confirmed that these are socks of the same user. Won't claim to understand their motivation. Abecedare (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well after reading the WP:LAME dispute I don't think there is a mistake! :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.74.118 (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your fantastic start as an admin. Keep up the great work. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope to welcome you to the ~~club~~ madhouse soon; need more people to share the blame. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Could be a few months away yet. But fingers crossed :P Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I have seen, you shouldn't have any problems even if you ran now. Just consult YM (through email to get honest feedback), and if he says you are good to go, you should sail through. That said, didn't mean to rush you. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sent you an email. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi men, start de Article from a venezuelan band called "Idonea"

Hi men howre you? I want to create a article for a venezuelan band called "Idonea",

Their band, won a award in january 2009, for Revelation band in Urbe Awards

Thank you

I hope that they let me make the article, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maralejo8 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Maralejo, Please see wikipedia's guidelines for having articles on bands: WP:NBAND. Unfortunately Idonea does not seem to qualify yetr. Abecedare (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi abecedare

Abecedare, Hey, but that leaves Requirements Idonea must have won something, but Idonea if I win a prize for best band revelation in 2009.

And are close to taking his new album —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maralejo8 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, winning awards that are then reported by the media, would be one way to establish notability for the band. All the best with your album release. Abecedare (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi, can you please make me an administrator? Thanks. Keegscee (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please carefully read What RfA contributors look for and hope to see and What RfA contributors look for and hope not to see. Or WP:GRFA for more info in general. Also, you have to nominate yourself first. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 03:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Abecedare (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response! Keegscee (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)