User talk:Akhilleus/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Akhilleus. 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.

questions?

Accusing Harebag, of all editors, of being a VK35 sock or vice versa is out of line. Continued attacks on me by Jersyko because he is unhappy with Jimbo Wales is in violation of WP:AGF.

I have asked Jersyko to channel his efforts constructively by helping me with McDonnell Douglas v. Green but he has not done so. I have also asked Harebag to spend his efforts on improving one police or fire department article instead of spreading his effort over many with the result of having non-notable articles that are widely voted for deletion. Like Jersyko, he has not done so. (According to Jersyko's logic, Jersyko must be a sock of Harebag!).

If you would like to calm the situation down and rechannel everyone's efforts toward constructive efforts to write Wikipedia articles, you might do some good by recommending to Jersyko that he stop fighting Jimbo Wales.VK35 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And why would Jersyko's lack of interest in working on an article with you demonstrate anything? By the way, I have some concerns about yet another username who may be a sockpuppet of Dereks1x. Since you seem quite focused on this puppetmaster, is that of interest to you as well? Tvoz |talk 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was addressing that last one to VK35, who seems to have an inordinate interest in Dereks1x and Jersyko, but thanks for the reply. I'm already satisfied that VK35 is a sockpuppet of Dereks1x's - there are several other usernames that I believe have been added to the crowd already on his list and I'll deal with them separately. Tvoz |talk 02:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

hahah - not to worry. Tvoz |talk 03:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me

Why did you close Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AFI-PUNK, when there were still accounts that I had significant evidence to indicate were his? The first 3 accounts where all blocked, but then I got no comments about the other two. I'm particularly considered about the fifth one because it is so clearly him. Can you block these other accounts?Hoponpop69 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another ip that he vandalised from today [1].Hoponpop69 03:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He's back under the name User:Ska-Lord. Again, on my talk page, he's arguing over Papa Roach's genre with very poor english[[2], and he's switching the genre of the Papa Roach singer[3].Hoponpop69 17:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

latin

well, i never took latin. only spanish. So i mostly used a translator. hm.. I guess you weren't senate material. You're actually sane and compromising. sorry.--D-Boy 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Serena (actress)

Wonder if you could temporarily block the page below from editing.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Serena_%28actress%29 or http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Serena (actress)

Serena is an erotic actress from the 80ies, and an inappropriate image of her, aged 60(?), is being repeatedly added as an illustration to her "erotic actress" template. It would be nice that the article is rather free of the embarrassing content until the persistent user is satisfied. The user also implies that he would block others to make sure his POV image addition remains, which I believe is improper as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.232.153.106 (talk • contribs) 15:30, June 2, 2007 (UTC)

Hah. A nice one-side account of things. The image he keeps removing is a free-use image of Serena. It does not matter if the image is "embarrassing" or not but whether the image is actually her (and it is - see www.classicpornserena.com for a non-free use image which illustrates her). As well, there are other articles of porn stars from older days which have pictures of how the currently look illustrating them: Seka and Cara Lott are two than I can readily think of. And I did not make any such claim about blocking others! My exact statement on that topic is this:

After all, the mission of Wikipedia is to "create a free content ("free" as in "free speech") encyclopedia under a free license". If you feel the article needs locking, be my guest and try to get it locked... but that pic will still be on the article!

RESPONSE: By block threats I'm referring to the following statements on my User talk:66.232.153.106 page

" Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Serena (porn star), you will be blocked from editing. Tabercil 06:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Serena (porn star), you will be blocked from editing. Tabercil 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC) "

I don't feel like commenting on untrue statements from the user going forward. All subsequent arguments (due to lack of possibility of normal discussion) would be channelled to voting or arbitration.

Making clear reference to the purpose of Wikipedia (quoted text lifted from WP:FU). Tabercil 22:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Adult supervision

Thank you for answering my call for an adult. You're the very adult I might have had in mind. This is one of those cases of mutually supporting hoaxes inflated by "dungeons and dragons" subculture and the Society for Creative Anachronism, where one can't be entirely sure it's not all some perfectly honest self-delusion snowballing without corrective benefit of a library. "Ralph Brocklebank" seems to be nothing more than the inventor of "dragonology". It all surfaced at Talk:Cockatrice. Once again, thank you: let me take a back seat. --Wetman 06:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject dealing with human evolution/paleoanthropolgy?

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology. It's a broader focus, but might be able to help. I'll poke in and see if I can do anything. Vanished user ^talk 08:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, don't bother. That article's largely nonsense. From the lead section about religious truth, linking to Darwinism instead of Evolution; an explanation of hominid evolution that, at best, about 30 years out of date; to the major POV problems of the equal time to creationism. Vanished user ^talk 08:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. don't worry. It doesn't link to the articles it's a fork of, so it's not immediately clear. Severe Undue weight issues, though, but I think you spotted that. The See also (only links to articles related to the creationist side), and the Darwinism link are the really big giveaways that this isn't just a bad article, but concerted POV-pushing. Vanished user ^talk 20:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ednan

Dear Akhilleus,

I am, I must admit, somewhat shocked by the reaction to my articles. However, it does look as though the objections come exclusively from User:Wetman.

I have located and added a second (more acceptable, I trust) reference to the Drachentaube article and removed the deletion notice. I hope you approve of this improvement and will let the article remain.

I am not Ralph Brocklebank, but, as you surmise, I do have association with him. I had hoped by creating the stub to encourage contributions from other heraldically-inclined Wikipedians more detached from him personally, so I am sorry you have removed it. Would you consider replacing it?

Likewise, the College of Dracology article. Can we not give it more time? The College may not be as notable as, say, The Heraldry Society, but it is taken seriously by heraldists in the United Kingdom, many of whom are members of both organisations. We are certainly not talking here about "a "dungeons and dragons" subculture and the Society for Creative Anachronism".

So, where do I stand now on creating articles on other heraldic mythical creatures? I do not deny having been put off by this recent experience, particularly when User:Wetman refers to me a “a serious vandal” (Talk:College of Dracology).

With all due regards, Ednan 12:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Akhilleus

I just noticed this attempt. I'm sorry I don't know any better, but I understand where all this must not be. What I don't know is where it must be. I'll help in whichever direction once I find out. Niko Silver 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw Ryan did some magic there. Niko Silver 23:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

re your message

no problem! Jameswilson 23:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I would like some help in reporting and warning a member who warned me or gave me a ==final warning==. There has been many problems with a certain bot: user:BetacommandBot. Someone called user:Timothy Titus figured he has been lying about his age/student status and this goes some way to explaining the poor management of the bot. I agreed with Timothy's point here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:BetacommandBot#Is_this_bot_really_owned_by_a_student.3F and henseforth recieved a ==final warning== from this gentleman (user:Nwwaew]] for exessive personal insults(?). I have had information of his threats and poor management before to other members. What can be done for me and others who are a victim of this member? Thankyou for your time, Reaper7 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

College of Dracology

No, I am a not a member of the College of Dracology, although I will admit to association with one of the founders (but then many people deeply into heraldry will have). Ednan 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:SwatJester

I typed out a big bunch of text, but JzG closed the conversation sometime before I was done. Guess I'll dump it here. :D –Gunslinger47 06:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone else declined the unblock, then protected his page for abuse of the unblock tab. Now he's using Special:Emailuser to demand I unblock him. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble believing that this guy is going to be a productive contributor when his block expires. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not required to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. The ZapZone Network provides free email subdomains within "five minutes". Tinklecomm is one of these subdomains, at tinklemail.zzn.com. The owner of this account sells adspace and likely makes money off every hit. Searching for "tinklemail", "tinklecomm", "atalat", "Atala T LLC", yada yada, produces no pertinent results on Google outside of Wikipedia. Muriness has made no edits that are wholly unrelated to Tinklecomm. His edits are filled with information found nowhere else. This all points unquestionably to a WP:COI at best, and a WP:SPAM at worst.

When the block expires, the user should be told in no uncertain terms that any further attempts to mention the existence of this website will result in an indefinite ban. –Gunslinger47 06:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Archving at WP:SUSPSOCK

Hello! I was looking around the WP:SUSPSOCK page and wondered it could do with an archival bot. All the actioning person would have to do is add a template, such as {{SSA}} (Suspected Sock Archive) to the request and the bot will search every five minutes and archive them to the current month directory. If you are interested in supporting such a bot and template process, please leave a note on my talk page and I will see what I can do. Extranet is now E ^talk 10:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that template should do. I'll take a look around and create an outline. I will let you know of the status of it, if it goes through. Extranet is now E ^talk 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the message I left at the WP:SUSPSOCK talk page. Are you able to let a few people know about it as the bot will be approved very soon and I'll give you the queue at the talk page on when to start using the templates. E ^talk 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College of Dracology

Have you read the most recent statement by FrozenPurpleCube at the great Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College of Dracology debate? Quite frankly I do not care so much about contributing to Wikipedia that I am going to a) go out of my way to provide a higher level of evidence for my statements than any refereed journal would ever demand, and b) break copyright laws. If FrozenPurpleCube is so convinced that my reference is false, he should try and prove it. I can assure you he will fail. Ednan 15:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is about "Dragonlore" and the College of Dracology. All public and university libraries run an inter-library loan service. I see that the Canadians have heard of the College. The trouble is that there are people who clearly have no interest in or knowledge about heraldry getting involved in this discussion. Ednan 16:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote the article? It is seven pages long! (And anyway, how are you going to know whether or not my "quote" is true?) The Coat of Armsis without a doubt a reliable source. As I say, there are people who clearly have no interest in or knowledge about heraldry getting involved in this discussion, otherwise it is likely they would have their own copies of the journal and be able to confirm what I say is correct. Ednan 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would you have sources from outside the world of heraldry? For example compare it with the College of Arms article. To be honest I think the case has been made, and I don't want to spend any more time on it. Ednan 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The article in “The Coat of Arms” begins with the statement: “Dragonlore is the name of a Newsletter or Journal issued at irregular intervals by The College of Dracology for the Study of Fabulous Beasts.” The article then goes on to give details of the history of the College and the journal, illustrated with numerous examples of front covers of Dragonlore (which feature mythical beasts). The origin of the word “dracology” is discussed. On p226 brief information about membership of the College is given. The article then continues with illustrated examples of certain beasts that have been studied and reported on by the College (e.g. manticor, enfield, iguana, lamia). At the end of the article there are two further pages (pp230-1) – which I missed when quoting the ref. – which is the reproduction of an article that appeared in Dragonlore in 2002 on three-fold cubic symmetry with a family of fabulous beasts. Ednan 08:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the follwing articles cite any references demonstrating notability (or anything else): American College of Heraldry, Committee on Heraldry of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, The Royal Heraldry Society of Canada, Heraldry Society of Scotland. (More evidence of notablitly has now been provided for the College of Dracology than these organisations have.) Are you going to nominate these articles for deletion? Ednan 23:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not planning to disrupt Wikipedia just to make a point. But on the basis of "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander", why did you single out the College of Dracology for deletion yet ignore the others I have just pointed out? Ednan 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comments

...on this matter, as you were previously involved in a related discussion. Raymond Arritt 04:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please specify details of formatting error justifying removal of sockpuppet report.

What was the formatting error which you used as justification for this edit: [4]? --John Nagle 18:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vexatious sockpuppet report

Thanks for letting me know about that bad faith report. John was notorious for these kinds of vexatious shenanigans in the past, and was seemingly addicted to original research, but I thought I had trained him to stop using original research, and had appeared to improve more recently. I see now that he is regressing. If he continues in these kinds of actions, I will have to take sterner action. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

email

Did you get my email from last week? It's not a big deal, but I'd kind of like to get that taken care of, and am not sure how to proceed. I can re-send if it didn't get there. Thanks Tvoz |talk 23:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that's totally fine. Tvoz |talk 14:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

toki pona

Hi, why was the toki pona page removed? thanks AJ

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toki Pona (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Most people in that discussion voted to keep. Furtheron, it became one of the biggest conlangs in the last years, having more than 100 speakers, and in some time will probably pass by languages like Ido. Yet it seems to be more in use than Lojban. And I often came back to read the article, because it really is interesting. And this article has many interwiki-links too, which indicates a lot too. So please put the article back! --LaPingvino, moderator of the biggest toki pona mailing list (moderated, few hundred members), fluent speaker

One problem is that the entry in the deletion log has an edit summary that points to the old AfD as grounds from deletion. This, of course, is incorrect, since that AfD did not reach a consensus to delete, the 2nd one did. I myself was puzzled until I arrived here. --Agamemnon2 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I read that too and I'm still puzzled... This really doesn't make sense. But it doesn't really matter. In one or two years a book about the language by its creator will appear, and then even that problem will be fully solved :). --LaPingvino (82.171.74.245 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

I am also wondering this. I have linked to the article for a long time, and was surprised to see that it no longer exists. It has been recently deleted too, Google Cache still has it. Google indicates that it also exists in a number of different language Wikipedias... And the AfD page seems mostly been in support of keeping the article. I do not understand why it was deleted all of a sudden. Bisqwit 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Archival bot for WP:SUSPSOCK

Hello there again. My bot is believed to start some trials sometime towards the end of the week and that's when we would require the manual archiving to stop temporarily (while still closing the requests with {{SSPa}}) so we can see if the bot functions correctly. I will notify you again by another message if we are ready and hopefully you could possibly notify a few others who also manually archive there to stop temporarily as well, that would be much appreciated and would get the trials done faster. As said before, I will let you know of any updates and when we need that to happen. Thanks, E ^talk 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of User:Komodo lover

Hello, thanks for blocking User:Black Rhino Ranger as per my report at WP:SSP. However, the person that posted on Black Rhino Ranger's talk page right after you made the block (shown here), User:Womcat, has made edits on the same pages Black Rhino Ranger has, as well as editing in the same style. Can you block him immediately, or should I file a formal report at WP:SSP? Thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks again. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

An IP sock. User:75.33.114.87. Contributes on the same articles and in the same manner as above. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Flavius Belisarius

Thanks for your note. I'm afraid I'm only semi-active these days, so I didn't have much energy following up on this. F.B. is currently relatively constructive, but he's had rather severe bouts of edit-warring when he doesn't get his way, and I'm a bit afraid the editor who brought the case forward the other day may have left the article because of him. I don't mind F.B. editing, but we need someone to keep a close watch on him and make it clear to him that he doesn't own his articles and that he isn't supposed to be biting other editors away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Akhilleus. I'm still editing the Turkey related articles (found your talk page when I checked the case today). He has not scared me away as might have been feared. FB has been considerably more constructive since I opened this case, and broadcast the sockpuppet allegation. I have also made an attempt to complement his more substantive contributions in an attempt to reign him in some. I am concerned that he will behave for a time, and then return to his old ways. That said, perhaps it is simply better to have him edit under a name we know, than to try and find out whatever identity he assumes next, since he clearly intends to stay with Wikipedia for the time being. I would just like to know someone is watching him, since he is still taking ownership of articles in which I am involved (to a lesser extent). See Ottoman Empire for a dispute over pics. I am mostly concerned that nothing was communicated to him on behavior following this case. Thanks! Hiberniantears 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would draw your attention here [5]. To test the waters with Flavius, I am trying to maintain an edit claiming the Ottoman Empire was ethnically diverse, and at the same time give attention to his efforts to insert language on how the empire was known as Turkey. I think his edit summaries show that he is very determined to see his version of the article maintained, even when multiple other editors are trying to make changes. His manner of editing is also still quite hostile (although he and User:OttomanReference seem to have some prior issues as well). My goal here is not to exacerbate the issue, or cause a problem. Rather, I am trying to point out that it is nearly impossible to edit articles on things related to Turkish or Ottoman history without having ones head taken off by FB. As much as 50% of his edits are really great, the other 50% are meant to revert anyone else's additions, or keep the article from being reduced in size. Most of these articles are enormous thanks to his many image uploads, and he won't even allow images to be moved within articles, let alone removed to scale down the size. Hiberniantears 20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUSPSOCK - Mysterious J

You said you'd blocked all of the named accounts at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mysterious J. However, the latter two still haven't been blocked. I know we can't block IPs indef., but neither have been blocked. Thanks! Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a typo. "Raccoon" is with two "c"s. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks! Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Vinay412

Hi, you were the closing admin on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vinay412. He's now using the anon IP address that was mentioned there (202.41.72.100). There's good evidence that it really is the same guy, and as far as I know it's not a shared IP address, so IMHO it should be blocked too.

andy 06:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford

AfD was filed by a sockpuppet and one of the delete votes was by a sock. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emnx. AfD should be voided. GlassFET 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still looking into blocking one and possibly two accounts involved. I may ask the same thing, but not just yet.--Chaser - T 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd block both accounts you're talking about, but that won't change my close of the AfD; the discussion makes it clear that there aren't enough sources, sockpuppets or no. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tecmobowl

Be aware that after about a week's worth of being blocked on and off, and having been caught sockpuppeteering, Tecmobowl is now trying to fan the flames further, with a complaint to another admin User talk:^demon presumably for the purpose of seeking "payback" of some kind, thus pulling people into the discussion again after you've marked the cases against him as "closed for now" in essence. I'm pretty well fed up with this guy and have taken most of the articles he has touched off my watch list, to try to keep my aggravation level simmered. Baseball Bugs 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I choose to keep some of Tecmo's pages on my watch list, in order to help defend against the User:Ron liebman sockpuppet Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman which, I hasten to add, has no connection to the Tecmo case, they just happen to modify some of the same articles. Baseball Bugs 03:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Good points. Baseball Bugs 03:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you review the history of Tecmo's talk pages, you will see that he makes nice (as below) when he wants something, and stonewalls anyone who dares to question his approach to things. Basically, the only way to get along with him is to agree with him, to "kiss up" to him. One element of his approach is to try to make it more difficult to see his behavior pattern, as he frequently blanks his talk page in defiance, compelling the investigator to read dozens of little snippets in his talk page history. Blanking one's talk page that way is not strictly against the rules, but is considered impolite, a concept which is generally foreign to that user except when it suits his purposes. He is very quick to cite wiki rules towards others, but as his behavior pattern shows (especially recently), he is loathe to fellow those rules himself. His constant complaint about "content" is a diversionary tactic. Wikipedia is not just about content. It's also about community, about trying to get along with others... another concept that appears to be foreign to that user. Baseball Bugs 03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just one more thing, and then I'll take this off my watch list also. :) You might ask, why don't I quit messing around with this guy and just file an RFC against him? Maybe someone will, but it won't likely be me... because I find it offensive to go "running to Mommy". Real men talk to each other, instead of saying "I won't talk to you" like some junior high school girl, and they settle things between themselves. They might shout at each other for awhile, but maybe they can find common ground and get reasonable and calm. That's how it should work. And that's how I hoped it would work with this guy. But sometimes things just don't work out. That's the way of the world sometimes. Baseball Bugs 04:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Can you perhaps help? I need an admin's assistance. There is ongoing discussion with regard to his deletions of a great number of Fansgraphs ELs. He has opened up discussion of the same subject under a new header. I have sought to centralize the discussion. He RVs my centralization of it. This interferes with the ability of editors to follow the discussion, which is already wide-ranging, extensive, and therefore difficult to follow. Can you help? Thanks. You can find the relevant revisions on the history page at [6], focusing on today's revisions. --Epeefleche 09:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My sock case

I find your comments on my sock case to be fairly unnerving. Rather than give you all the back information, I will just share some information that I think might help. There was no independent evaluation process. The administrator who engaged me in conversation also created the ban and the sock puppet case. Everyone who was not already involved in the case failed to adhere to the wiki ideology before drawing conclusions. WP:AGF seems to get over looked a great deal and I would hope in the future that you consider that before making assumptions and statements. Be well and happy editing.//Tecmobowl 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, it's a very difficult situation and one where I have already approached the cabal and tried to appeal to the "system", but with not much support. I have been attacked pretty heavily when all i want to do is discuss the content of the edits and not who said who to what when and why. Unfortunately, I will be asking for a review of the admin who initiated the sock claim and the block. It is simply to keep wiki as well balanced as possible. If we cross paths in the future, I love chatting about the content and please engage me (just don't bite). I am WP:BOLD, not disruptive. Cheers and be well. I have blanked your comments from my talk page. Because of all the nonsense, it's easier just to keep the thing blank right now :-).//Tecmobowl 03:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I differ with Tecmo's characterization of his actions as bold, but not disruptive. To the contrary they are bold and decidly disruptive. Leaving aside all of his prior disruptive behavior, please consider the following. Your assistance in addressing would be greatly appreciated.

Problematically, despite what IMHO is a consensus on including the Fangraphs url as an EL in baseball bios, and despite prior comments by Tecmo evidencing that he agrees that the formatting there is unique (he had the peculiar request that we only include Fangraphs on the basis of that point), and despite the heavy evidence of unique data, Tecmo is filibustering. This is disruptive.

Tecmo is also today on that page seeking to open up discussion of that issue, already discussed on one place, elsewhere. That only has the efrect of confusing people who try to follow the discussion and contribute. They are best served by it being in one place. But just now, when I sought to centralize it, he RVd my change. This is disruptive.

Out of purgatory today, Tecmo is again deleting Fangraphs ELs, as well as others -- see, for example, Hank Greenberg. This is disruptive.

Deletion of urls, without consensus, causes more harm than retaining them. Let's assume there is a 50-50 chance that consensus will be reached either way, as to any of these urls. If it is decided that they should not have been deleted, who will go look for ELs that Tecmo has deleted, and restore the ELs? How will one easily find them? This is a highly labor intensive process. How does one find the ELs if people have deleted them from different user names? Even if one seeks to only restore the ELs that Tecom has deleted that had, say, Fangraphs, we would have to search the edit history of Tecmo, and then search in the history of each baseball bio for the EL. Or else perform an independent search for the Fangraphs (and other) ELs to recreate them. Notably, the problem with finding the deleted EL in the history becomes greater as time passes, and there are more revisions on the history page.

It is not the same the other way. If it is decided by consensus that any retained ELs should be deleted, one need only search for the url. The bios, with the ELs, all then pop up quite readily, and the ELs can be readily deleted.

Given this, if nothing else, I believe that such ELs should be maintained, as consensus is sought, not deleted. Great disruptive damage has been done already. And even today, just released, Tecmo has gone on to create even more disruption. We really need an admin's assistance. Thanks.--Epeefleche 10:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUSPSOCK manual archiving to stop

Hello Akhilleus :) The trials for this bot are about to start and I need the manual archiving to stop from now until further notice to let the bot do some work to show the BAG that it will be good. Also, if you do witness the bot malfunctioning, please block it and let me know so I can investigate. Kind regards, E ^talk 05:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of fixing it at the moment. I will let you know when its done. E ^talk 21:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Hi - please have a look at this. Tough action is needed. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Coin

I am having a hell of a time with a disruptive COI editor. Could you have a look at wp:coin? Jehochman ^Talk 02:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tiamat. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -- JHunterJ 22:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Akc9000

Hello, I have shortened your indef block to 24 hours from the time that you initially blocked this user. From what I see the user has never had any prior blocks before yours. I have left a note as to what guidelines and policies he should have a read over before returning to help us work on the encyclopaedia. Regards —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this discussion to the existing thread at WP:COIN. This editor is a Single Purpose Account for COI/SPAM. As such, policy is to indef block. You've basically done an WP:IAR, and that's fine with me, as long as you continue to monitor this editor. You might suggest that he join WP:ADOPT. Keep in mind that an indef block is not a permanent ban. The editor is welcome back whenever he demonstrates that he is willing to follow Wikipedia's content policies. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 01:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo-Pythagoreanism

Thanks for the heads-up about Noesis. I've reverted there and proposed deletion of Noesis (disambiguation). I only now realized that Doug is linking to the works of John Opsopaus in articles ostensibly about ancient ideas! You can browse through the links to those magickal writings; any article on something more historical than modern tarot practices is highly suspect. Wareh 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re possibility of the Wikipedia community's recognition of Doug's bad faith or bad effects: I was surprised to see at Talk:Divine_Nous (diff) what is, in my estimation, an outright lie on his part to make himself look better. The anonymous edits he's disclaiming are from IP's in his region of Michigan and seem unmistakably his. By the way, I am probably about to become considerably scarcer for a while owing to other commitments, but I'll still be checking in every so often. Wareh 17:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this may need a full-fledged user conduct RfC, if only for publicity. I will have to go shortly; but if I see one has appeared tomorrow, I will certainly endorse it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U on Petri Krohn filed

You might be interested to know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn has been filed. Digwuren 20:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Folkspraak article

Hello Akhilleus, I hope you're having a good day.

I noticed that you saw the result of the Folkspraak discussion as being delete, and I was wondering if you could comment on this. I hope I don't sound like I'm disrespecting you, but I'm really not seeing how the discussion could be interpreted as having reached a consensus. The discussion got bogged down in the relative merits of two references and an edit I had added. It never seemed to recover, and by that time, the five-day limit had passed. If you consider only the comments through June 17, they do seem less mired but, if anything, even less reflective of a consensus.

I would appreciate your comments. Cal 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cal, thanks for the note. A majority of editors in the AfD supported deletion; more importantly, no one was able to establish that Folkspraak was notable--there's not enough non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. If you feel there are sources that weren't taken into consideration, I'll be happy to look at them, but based on the discussion in the AfD and the material in the article I didn't see any convincing evidence that Folkspraak was a notable encyclopedic topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so promptly. I apologize for being so long-winded below! I didn't realize how much I was writing.

While I respect your reasoning, I feel that it was mistaken, and I suggest that you undelete the article for the following reasons:

A majority of editors did not support deletion, as reflected in their votes. The votes on the page are as follows:

2 Delete

3 Keep

1 Undecided

1 Neutral

Too few reliable sources with nontrivial coverage is not a reason for deletion. As stated here under Alternatives to Deletion, pages that can be improved should be edited rather than deleted. A tag, "verify", is available specifically for the problem you noted. Reasons for deletion include "article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "all attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed," as shown on the same page under Reasons for Deletion. These reasons are quite different from the one you gave in that they involve unsalvageability. This is a common source of confusion on Wikipedia.

On the other hand, perhaps you are saying that nontrivial coverage in reliable sources doesn't exist anywhere. Granted, that can be a reason for deletion, but nothing like it was determined during the discussion. Only the three sources I suggested were even considered, and at the end, only the nominator felt that all three sources were trivial or unreliable.

If a subject seems non-notable, an article on it may be tagged, or sources may be sought. If sources cannot be found, attempt a merge. Only after these options have been tried should an article be nominated for deletion, as explained here. Although the nominator seemed to be arguing that no sources existed, I found three with just a cursory Google search. No one even mentioned a merge, to say nothing of attempting one.

Under Nomination, this page lists steps to follow before nominating an article for deletion. There is little indication that the nominator took these steps. For example, I didn't find any notifications at relevant sites. I just happened to stumble upon the article and notice that it had been nominated.

Perhaps most importantly, the role of the administrator is to determine if the editors have reached a consensus. If you didn't see evidence that Folkspraak is notable, I respect that, but with few exceptions, it has no bearing on the outcome of a deletion discussion. I appreciate your offer to consider other sources, but again, the purpose of your reviewing the article and the discussion is to determine if others have reached a consensus. See Closure here.

One subject I haven't touched upon is deletion of articles on specialized subjects. Folkspraak is such a subject, and no one really treated it as such.

You may want to review the pages I linked to above before concluding any further discussions with delete. Precipitous deletions have been a source of much concern, so I think caution is in order for all of us.

It's nothing personal. Have a good day :) Cal 03:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Linear B unicode symbols

I noticed on Talk:Linear B that you were able to get the symbols to show up. I've downloaded and installed the Code2001 font in Windows, but they still don't show up in IE7. What else do I need to do? Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-21 15:42Z

WP:POINT, WP:HOAX, WP:PN, WP:BIAS

I may not have written on the specific elements of the articles, but it is clear that those four rules are widely violated, without challenge by admins or sysops as if meaning nothing to the validity and respectability of the website in terms of NPOV. Since I have edited on some articles here, I have tried very hard to be objective and fair-minded. At Talk:Philosophy_of_Greek_pederasty, these are User:Haiduc's words:

Generally men would not have had to refuse the attentions of boys, boys usually waited to be courted. The love of a boy was also seen as something of great value, which men fought over. But would a man refuse such a gift? Why not? The Greeks did whatever they wanted, that is the freedom they defended. Still, he would have been seen as stingy - taking on a boy was considered an act of generosity. Would it have been possible to covert the Greeks to heterosexuality? It has been accomplished. It was done through force and fear. Haiduc 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This editor is a huge pusher of Greek homosexual pedestalism POV and I find the whole approach to Greek society to be extremely offensive and distasteful. I lodged three complaints, where I noticed an ominous problem of systemic bias on the part of non-Hellenes who gravitate to Greek culture and history, to remake it according to their prejudices and thus present their stereotypes as FACT to others in the Anglophonic world, for instance. Yet, you delete it. 68.110.8.21 02:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You should be recalled for calling GrecoReport unreliable vis a vis career propagandists of Greek homosexuality, taking sides with Haiduc and threatening a block at my complaint. I am interested in Hellenic studies, but I suppose Wikipedia is unreliable for the POV pushers are in bed with the administration. That is one of many complaints commonly lodged about Wikipedia. You take good care of whatever loophole and people you know, because you obviously know next to nothing on the subject apart from your own prejudices. 68.110.8.21 02:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dwrules and Claxson

Thanks for blocking those two: I made the report weeks ago and was worried it had been overlooked (pun intended!)--Rambutan (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel this block may have been made without considering all the evidence - please will you review my points on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:MrClaxson#Unblock. Thanks. Kelpin 16:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

i should be dwrules. why am i blocked???--86.6.19.155 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion isn't smart. If you think you should be unblocked, post on your (User:Dwrules) talk page. An unblock request is unlikely to be accepted, though, because your IP address was used by one of your sockpuppets. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

i appear to have lost my password, and it looks like i have met these 'brothers' in person as i brought a computer recentlyand is now in my possession! --86.6.19.155 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kviki

At this point, I hope you've followed the discussion to the point that you know that User:Kviki is not a sock puppet. As a new user, I made the mistake of asking Kviki to join Wikipedia to get involved in a debate (meat puppetry). When the problem was pointed out, I immediately admitted the mistake and Kviki immediately ceased participation in the debate to avoid disruption. Please remove the sock puppet classification from Kviki's account (that says Kviki is my sockpuppet). I also think it would be reasonable for you to unblock Kviki. According to Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets; "In general, meatpuppets used to e.g. sway a deletion debate need not be blocked; they should simply be ignored unless they get disruptive. Meatpuppets have been known to turn into productive editors." --Rogerfgay 10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your edits to Joji Obara

You should take a good look at the discussion page, there is no real consensus, Mackan fabricated one. You should also stop listening to that guy, he is lying to you, he is the one canvassing the article on BBS with racial slurs. Don't let him fool you, it is not neutral as an administrator to believe everything this guy throws at you and take side with him on a dispute. Vml132f 10:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Italiavivi's falsified charge of sock puppetry

Yesterday to my surprise I saw that there is a whole controversy about me. I was not informed about this at all. I would wish to have the sock puppet page removed. Below is what I posted at the sock puppet page about me:

The two accounts were in full and independent operation since before the Miriam Shear conflict even started. Thus the accusation based as it is on Yisraeldov being a replacement for Yisraelasper is groundless. Yisraelasper

The Mehadrin bus line was not my cause. You are making canards. The Miriam Shear story I contributed to but it also was not my only one on Wikipedia. Also you continually censored out what I added on the Miriam Shear story. I have no account other one. Worry about your own cases of being blocked and condemned by people rather than starting up again with me. I am not identical with any other user other than myselfself. It so happens my full name includes the name Dov as my second name but I have no other Wikipedia account other than Yisraelasper. If you continue to make trouble I will urge you be banned again as you hinder rather than help. Yisraelasper

Italiavivi I contributed to more than just one article. You claim above that I was a one agenda user and yet you fail to say that my last post on May 2 was on something else a topic I returned to yet. I posted on

May 2 "Talk:Extrasolar moon (The Petition no longer exists)."

I am not identical to Yisraeldov. I also don't live in Israel. I don't have an agenda for separate bus seating. I don't feel there is a need for separate bus seating. The Miriam Shear dispute has been over for months. You kept on though reposting warnings on my user page including on June 12 the date of your posting above after not posting on my site for at least over a month if not longer. No one asked you to. I am going to complain about this attack on me to Wikipedia to have this page removed or otherwise have you banned. What kind of a system is this where the evidence is not reviewed? Anyone with an agenda like Italiavivi can defame someone and that someone is not informed of the charges to be able to make a defense?User:Yisraelasper

Italiavivi I didn't know until now that there was an Egged article. You just make accusations and this you submit as evidence! Yisraelasper

Italiavivi you say that Yisraeldov started contributing in 2007? He was around in June 2006* and I've seen now that the first of his many contributions as far back as I was able to see started in July 2006**. All this was before even the Miriam Shear controversy. How could he be sock puppet for what wasn't yet?

"*http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:YisraeldovUser talk:Yisraeldov From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Welcome!

Hello, Yisraeldov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mak (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

- http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Modern_Orthodox_Judaism

Your view of RZ is verry limited. Yes there is a MO comunity in Israel, and yes most of them tend to be RZ, but those are not the only or even the majority of Religious Zionists here. --yisraeldov 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" Yisraelasper

You were supposed to notify me of the charge "Notify the suspected puppetmaster." Instead you just reposted on June 12th 2007 old Miriam Shear article warnings though no one asked you too. Yisraelasper

MakNews the sequel

I'm sorry to appear here like as if I'm forum-shopping, but I thought I should notify you only as a previously involved party who knows the background. Check WP:ANI#NPAs, reverts, sock/meatpuppetry, pseudoscience continued for the full story of how the situation with MakNews has evolved. Again, sorry for bothering, and I'd appreciate your feedback because I may have not managed to completely suppress my bias in this, so a third-party opinion is always valuable. Niko Silver 14:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see I wasn't completely insane with this after all (here). Something tells me now that there will be a lot more coming... Niko Silver 09:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Joji Obara

I saw you warned Vml132f over the Joji Obara article. You might wanna warn User:DDRG too - after being inactive for a month, he returns only to revert back to Vml132f's version. Could it become any clearer that they are each other's socks/meats? -- Mackan ^{talk | c} 17:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and Vml132f's talk about "racial slurs on a BBS" are of course complete and utter lies, but I doubt you didn't see through that ridiculous attempt at discrediting me. -- Mackan ^{talk | c} 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop lying Mackan, you are discrediting yourself, and please stop spreading around groundless accusations of sockpuppetry against the editors only because we don't agree to your selfish opinion about a edit. you seem like a stalker to me. Vml132f 19:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action against DDRG. Vml132f should meet the same destiny, if not for his behaviour on Joji Obara then for spreading entirely groundless lies about me, without even attempting to give any evidence. You ask him to post on the talk page, and he gives you not a rationale but some bullshit about me being racist. Lovely, isn't it. -- Mackan ^{talk | c} 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kelpin

Kelpin (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock. I am inclined to unblock him. Reviewing the contributions of the user (and the IP they used), I see no evidence that he is the user you specify. The closest "evidence" is Kelpin defending a blocked user to some degree, which is hardly damning proof. Is there other evidence I am missing here? Vassyana 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I will sit on this a bit to think about it. If I do unblock him, I will keep on eye on his actions and be sure to let you know. If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know. Cheers! Vassyana 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken time to consider it and I will unblock the user and keep an eye on things. If something comes up, please let me know. Vassyana 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and agreeing to let Vassyana lift it. Just to let you know there are no hard feelings about the block. We all make mistakes. Kelpin 15:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do some cleanup

You recently closed the Zaku II AfD, can you do the cleanup and post the related stuff on the talk page? I removed the AFD thingie from the article since it's closed, but I don't know how to add the record on the talk page. Jtrainor 20:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alpinism

I believe this to be a combination of the cliche that a vote to merge is a vote to keep, and the closing admin's not noticing that all the multiple voting was by dear old Doug. I will start the process by asking him to reconsider; we can begin by a redirect to Petrarch. If neither works, DRV may be in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Doug has done a lot of strange things. They're documented on your talk page, and in the ANI section, which will disappear into the archives. It would be a service to WP to collect it all in one place. (On consideration, I redirected to Mont Ventoux, and dumped Doug's research on the talk page; some of it may be useful.)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism

Thanks for your comments folks. Firstly yes - morass is a reasonably exact way of describing the content of AfD discussion, but you can be assured that I read through and noted all of the contents, including the multiple and convoluted arguments put by more than one of the contributors. I note for the record that my count of the !votes was very similar to that detailed above. Secondly (and I note with relief that you are both finding the answer to your own question) the job of AfD is to find a consensus - which in reality is a consensus to delete because merge, move, redirect !votes act towards a keep decision. On that basis alone there is no consensus to delete. Thirdly, I considered carefully the suggestions of name changes - particularly to Birth of Alpinism but even that suggestion did not reach an absolute consensus. Finally therefore the result must be (by the deletion guidelines) to reach no consensus which in effect at this stage must be keep. All of that said, Septentrionalis has reached the most sensible conclusion (which I also noted was related in the AfD) - to actually undertake a merge of the article with Petrarch. I say this because after that is done carefully and accurately - those of you who wish to put in a new AfD will have a very solid argument (and a position from which clear consensus to delete is likely to be formed) that the article Birthday of alpinism is no longer required.--VS ^talk 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats my pleasure --Akhilleus. Please let me know if there is anyway I can help further - including (if you wish considering I will be accustomed to the debate content) when a new AfD takes place?--VS ^talk 23:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus - I have restored the article. I read your edit summary referring to the AfD and to admin VS's comments, which are above and on his talk page. They seem to suggest that the proper move is to merge content with the article on Petrarch, and then put in a new AfD. You have been redirecting to Mont Vetoux DuncanHill 08:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)